Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,921 of 14 December 2017



By means of a decree given by the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) in the records of the Application in the names Elmo Insurance Limited noe et vs David Farrugia, Appeal Number 176/15 AE, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Carmine Di Cicco, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Appeal Application, filed, in the Court of Appeal, (Inferior Jurisdiction) in the names Elmo Insurance Limited noe et vs David Farrugia, on the 13th May, 2016, Claim Number 176/15 JB, Decided 27th April, 2016, in the names Elmo Insurance Ltd (C3500) as subrogated in the rights of its insured Carmine Di Cicco (ID 30718A) and the same Carmine Di Cicco of Elmo Insurance Agency vs David Farrugia, the applicant David Farrugia (ID 74874M) respectfully pleaded,

That the plaintiffs asked that the defendant be condemned to pay the sum of (€1268.64), which sum represents damages suffered on the 4th January, 2014, in Xatt l-Għassara tal-Għeneb, Marsa, in the vehice LCN 352 property of the plaintiff Di Cicco and insured with the plaintiff company Elmo Insurance Limited, for which the defendant is to blame;

That the defendant rejected the responsibility limitedly and also said that the amount demanded is exagerated;

That by a judgement of the 27th April the Small Claims Tribunal, decided this cause by rejecting the first two pleas raised by the defendant, upheld the third plea of the defendant and consequently upheld the plaintiff’s claim limitedly to the sum of €700;

That the interpellant felt aggireved by this judgement and is thus filing this humble appeal;
That the grievances are clear and manifest and consist in the following:

1. That the evaluation made by the Tribunal is so superficial that it renders unjust and creates an injustice with who is diligent and precise in his evidence,

2. That a just and full evalutation of the facts of the case and the verbal evidence as well as that documented which was brought forward during the hearing and pleadings of the Tribunal, was not made;

That in the evidence of PS 436, Charles De Giorgio, states ‘I went down with sergeant 1330 and we saw a car of the Freelander LCN 352 which was stationary on the side of the street, which had the passenger’s window closed.

According to the defendant appellant the Tribunal reached the wrong conclusion when it decided that the defendant is to pay the plaintiff the amount of € 700.

This Court had occasion to state that,

‘It is a well established rule that a Court of Revision should not review the evalutation of the proof made by a Court of Inferior Jurisdiction and on which that Court has based its judgement,

‘This generic enunciation does not offer any difficulty and I do not remember that is was ever disputed. However, as in the case of any other regulation, it is necessary that the true limits of the principle be set down. It is also thus affirmed that when this Court is convinced that a manifest injustice is going to be caused it has the duty to review that evaluation and even reach a different conclusion from that reached by the Court of First Instance.It recurrs thus that there be re-examined the facts proved so that from them it sees whether there exist ‘grave reasons in virtue of which it reaches the conviction that the Court could not but have been mistaken in its evaluation. Reasons which bring about the conviction that if it does not substitute its evaluation of that proof to those of the Court of First Instance a manifest injustice shall be created’;

That from nowhere does there result that being stated by the Tribunal that ‘ the point remains that the defendant caused any damages when he went near the vehicle of the plaintiff’;

… omissis …
That if one considers all the documents exhibited by the plaintiff in his Claim and which the Tribunal did not find the defendant appellant guilty regarding them are the following;

… omissis …

That once the defendant appellant was not found guilty of the damages of the plaintiff, then there should be deducted even the amount of panel beating and spray painting by half and namely all that work which was made on the driver’s side and thus the amount presented in the cause of €548 is to be deducted by half;

… omissis …

That the Tribunal avoided the emails which were presented by the defendant appellant which show that the amount of the glass is of €130 and not €240 as demanded by the plaintiff.

Thus, the defendant appellant whilst filing this humble appeal from the judgement above mentioned refers to the proof already produced and reserves to bring the proof and make all the further and necessary submissions permitted by law, respectfully prays that this Honourable Court of appeal,revoke the judgement above mentioned given by the Small Claims Tribunal, on the 27th April, 2016, in the cause in the names premised, as demanded in this applicationand uphold the plaintiff’s demands limitedly for the sum of €700, with costs of both instances against the plaintiff.

Whereas the written proceedings in the cause before the Copurt of Appeal between Elmo Insurance Ltd as subrogated in the rights of its insured Carmine di Cicco and the same Carmine di Cicco of Elmo Insurance Agency vs David Farrugia have been closed, the Court fixed the hearing of the cause on Friday, twelfth (12) of January, 2018, at 10.00 a.m.

Appellant: David Farrugia, Capricorn Lodge, Triq Karmenu Pirotta, Birkirkara

Respondent: Carmine DI Cicco – 1. ‘Super’ 81, Triq it-Tankijiet, Birżebbuġa

2. Wycon, 5, Triq Ninu Cremona, Paola

3. Ken’s Court Flat 3, Misraħ San Alwiġi, Birkirkara

Registry of the Superior Courts (Inferior Appeals), today 11th December, 2017

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals