Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/992522
13 LAW & PLANNING maltatoday | SUNDAY • 10 JUNE 2018 A summary planning application for the 'proposed sanctioning of shopfront and existing signage and AC compressor box unit within front terrace' in relation to a small office located in Tower Street (Slie- ma) was submitted to the Planning Authority for assessment and even- tual decision. In his application, ap- plicant declared that he was the sole owner of the said premises. Subsequently, the Authority re- ceived a letter from a third party al- leging that applicant had submitted a false declaration since he (appli- cant) did not own the premises, fol- lowing which applicant's architect was informed about the matter. On the merits, the Directorate highlighted that 'the existing shop front fascia and sign proposed for sanctioning were not considered to compromise the present context and degree of activity of the streetscape despite the bold appearance'. As a result, the Planning Directorate felt that the proposal was thus in line with good practice guidance G36 and G39 of the Development Con- trol Design Policy, Guidance and Standards 2015 (DC15). For its part, the Planning Commis- sion agreed to the said recommen- dation and proceeded to issue per- mission insofar as the development indicated on the approved drawings was concerned. The Commission, however, agreed not to sanction any other illegal development that may exist on the site or was not shown in the approved drawings. More so, it was highlighted that if a matter was not specified by the architect, the conditions of the permission and provisions of DC15 would in that case apply. Applicant was also re- minded to submit a commencement notice, through his perit, at least five days prior to the utilisation of the permission, failure which the said permission would be consid- ered as never having been utilised. In addition, the premises were to be equipped with the relative safety measures in adherence with local fire safety regulations. Finally, the Commission maintained that ap- plicant was required 'to obtain the consent of the land/building owner prior to carrying out the develop- ment'. Following issuance of permission, applicant decided to communicate with the owner of the premises (the lessor), stating that he had ob- tained planning permission. With this communication in hand, the owner filed an appeal before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, reiterating that applicant had falsely declared that he was the owner of the premises and permis- sion should be consequently re- voked. In its assessment, the Tribunal took cognizance of the contents in the application form and held that applicant, by his own later admis- sion, had made a false declaration when stating that he was the sole owner of the premises. Against this background, the Tribunal con- cluded that the permit should be revoked. THE Magistrates' Court found an em- ployer guilty of offences found in the Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Chapter 452 of the Law of Malta), after the employer failed to pay all mon- ies due on the pretence that the employ- ees were engaged on a trial basis. This was held in a judgment delivered on 6 June 2018 by Magistrate Dr Donatella Frendo Dimech in the Police -v- Sabri Abdelazziz Khalifa. The Police had accused Khalifa, an owner of a business, with failing to pay the wages, overtime, vacation leave and notice period of his former employee Engin Turk. Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, analysed the evidence the prosecution brought before her, namely the injured party, Turk. He explained that was em- ployed by the accused to work in a Kebab shop, as a manager. He was employed a few days before the take-away had in fact opened and assisted in prepara- tions for the opening. He had drawn the accused's attention that only three were employed at the take-away and this was not sufficient. In the first two days of his employment he worked 17 hours, since he worked both as a manager as well as the chef in the kitchen. He noticed that Khalifa was employing people and after a few days, instructed him to dismiss them. Turk was instructed to purchase supplies with a VAT receipt. Turk was disappointed on how things turned out and wanted to resign. He explained to the court that promises were not kept. When he complained he was dismissed and was paid €900 for two weeks' work and the owner did not want to pay over- time, wages for working on Sundays and public holidays, since Turk was on trial basis. When he was crossed-examined, Turk argued that when first employed there was no agreement on the working hours and that at the time no chef was employed. He confirmed also that his wages were €1600 or €1800 a month. He explained that the accused also failed to register him as an employee and he had repeatedly asked for this to be done. Another former employee, Senket Ozmer, testified and told the court that the accused did not follow the employ- ment laws. He corroborated Turk, as they worked in the kitchen on 12 hour shifts from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. Jobsplus officials also confirmed that Turk was not registered as an employee with the accused's company. The Court commented that this at- titude and behaviour was a challenge to the laws and the authorities of this country. The accused also failed to re- ply to communications public officials made to draw his attention to his fail- ing. He continued with his practice of employing and dismissing people after telling them that they were working on a trial basis, and had no right to be paid. The accused testified and produced an advert for employees dated 5-7 Feb- ruary and therefore, it was impossible that Turk was employed before those dates, Turk held that he was employed on 5 February 2016. Khalifa argued that the rate agreed was €4.50 an hour and not €10.38. He worked 8 hours a day for six times a week. He also stated that Turk's employment was terminated be- cause he had left meats out and there- fore, the notice period was not an op- tion for Turk. He told the court that he himself had carried out the refurbish- ment of the premises, with the help of the tile layers. Turk had only helped in carrying out a machine. When he was employed he was employed on a trial basis and was intended to help him un- til he found another job. Other employ- ees were employed on shifts. The Court was not convinced with this version of events. The Court further commented that the accused ran his business un- professionally by not observing the law and was bent on taking advantage of employees, by not paying them. The Court declared that Khalifa was guilty of a number of provisions of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Chapter 452 of the Law of Malta) and ordered that he pay €4,369.30 to Turk. Trial periods for new employees are subject to the law mmifsud@mifsudadvocates.com.mt ASK MALCOLM Dr Malcolm Mifsud is partner at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates LAW robert@robertmusumeci.com ASK ROBERT Dr Robert Musumeci is an advocate and a perit having an interest in development planning law PLANNING Permission revoked due to false declaration of ownership