A request for retrial will not be accepted by the Court if the request contests the interpretation of the First Court. This was held in Malcolm Cassar vs Edrichton Estates Limited decided on the 10 December 2024 by the Court of Appeal. The Court was presided over by Judge Robert Mangion, Judge Grazio Mercieca and Judge Christian Falzon Scerri.
In 2014, the plaintiff had opened a claim against the defendant company regarding a dispute on the amount of ground rent which should be paid to the defendant company in relation to an apartment in St Paul’s Bay. The plaintiff alleged that the amount of ground rent which was being charged was not in conformity with the previous contracts of sale of the property, which explicitly outlined how the ground rent was to be increased and when this was to happen. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was increasing the whole amount of ground rent when only a part had to be increased at certain intervals. The defendant outright denied these claims and stated that the amount had been previously agreed upon with the previous owner of the apartment. The defendant also filed a counter-claim against the plaintiff asking the Court to order him to pay the amount of ground rent which was agreed upon according to the previous contract of sale.
In its decision, the Court denied all of Edrichton’s counterclaims and the second claim of the plaintiff which was in relation to the amount of the remaining increase in ground rent, following the redemption of part of it. Both of the parties decided to appeal the decision asking the court to reconsider and reform the judgement. The Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the first court and acceded to the second claim of the plaintiff. It ordered Edrichton to pay all of the expenses of the case.
Edrichton filed a court application on 13 February 2024 asking the Court for a retrial on the basis of Article 811(e) and (l) of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta. It alleged that the Court had applied the law wrongly and that the sentence given by the Court of Appeal contained factual mistakes. The Court stated that a judgement which is given must not be revoked easily and should only be revoked for serious and grave reasons, in the sense that, if the judgement were to remain in place it would go against public order. Therefore, retrial can only take place under those circumstances strictly outlined in the law which are strictly interpreted without any analogy.
In its court application for retrial, Edrichton stated that the Court failed to read the contracts outlining the amount of ground rent and increase in ground rent in question properly. It said that the contract did not distinguish between the amount of ground rent and the amount of increase in ground rent and that a global amount was agreed upon. However, the Court said that article 811(I) of Chapter 12 of the laws of Malta clearly states that a retrial can be sought when the sentence is the result of a mistake which is clearly shown in the acts and/or documents of the case. It said that just because the Court did not interpret a clause in the contract the way Edrichton wanted it to, does not mean that the Court misread the contract or that it made its decision on the supposition that the contract in question was stating one thing, when in fact it was stating another. Although Edrichton has every right not to agree with the Court’s decision, it does not mean that there is a mistake of fact.
The Court quoted from the judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal on the 31 May 2019 in the names of Joseph Agius et vs Golu Spiteri whereby the Court of Appeal had stated that a case for retrial must not be made for there to be a different interpretation from the Court which would have decided the case, because otherwise the Court hearing the retrial would be considering an appeal from a decision that cannot be appealed.
Therefore, in light of the above, the Court denied Edrichton’s request for a retrial and also ordered the company to pay €500 to the Court Registry for making a request for a retrial for vexatious reasons.
Av. Jodie Darmanin
Associate
Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
For more information you can contact one of our Team Members at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates.
