Judgment annulling notarial deeds confirmed on appeal

The Court of Appeal has confirmed a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court in terms of which two notarial deeds, whereby a company was transferred, were annulled.

Ian and Jacqueline Busuttil filed their writ in the First Hall of the Civil Court against Carmen Taliana.

They claimed that by means of a notarial deed they had purchased all Taliana's shares in the company Kashmiri Palace Ltd.

In a subsequent deed plaintiffs had bound themselves to refund Taliana the sum of Lm12,700 which she had lent them to start up business in the shop at 335, Manwel Dimech Street Sliema.

The Busuttils claimed that the shop was the only business run by Kashmiri Palace Ltd. However they added that after they had purchased the business from Taliana they had discovered that litigation was pending concerning the shop, for the landlord of the shop had filed judicial proceedings requesting the eviction of Kashmiri Palace Ltd from the premises.

Plaintiffs added that they would not have purchased the shares nor would they have borrowed the money from Taliana had they been aware of this litigation.

They therefore requested the First Hall of the Civil Court to annul the two notarial deeds and to condemn Taliana to refund to them the sum of Lm12,000 which they had paid her.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had upheld the Busuttils' writ and had found that their version of what had transpired was more credible than that submitted by Taliana.

The court noted that it could not believe that Taliana was not aware that the litigation filed against Kashmiri Palace Ltd was for the eviction of the company from the premises.

Taliana had concealed this fact from plaintiffs, for even her accountant was aware of what the litigation sought to achieve. Taliana lodged an appeal from this judgment to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Anton Depasquale and Mr Justice Albert J. Magri.

The Court of Appeal noted that Taliana had not informed the Busuttils of the existence of the court case and that her auditor had also failed to do so.

It was therefore clear that Taliana had defrauded the Busuttils and that the element of good faith which was required for contracts was lacking.

The Court of Appeal concluded its judgment by confirming the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court.