Monday law report

Albert H. Xuereb, director of Mercury plc, which fully owns the subsidiary St George's Park Co. Ltd, was concerned (July 2) that the law report appearing on June 16 might have negative inferences in a public forum that may adversely effect the commercial reputation of his company for non-payment of what is properly due. The law report in question did not state anything of this nature and therefore there cannot be such inferences. Mr Xuereb's concern in this regard is not valid.

Mr Xuereb's information that the judgment has been appealed from is however valid. And so is his information about an identical case with a different outcome. All other information is uncalled for.

Mr Xuereb stressed a judge's view that an absurd conclusion would result if temporary rights over property were accorded a greater value than perpetual rights. What is absurd to one may not be absurd to another; it may not be objectively absurd at all. It seems that the thrust of Mr Xuereb's letter is to discuss the legal points under review - which are sub judice and pending the appeal - and to stress that the judgment in his company's favour is the right one and the one against his company has an absurd conclusion. To state the least this is bordering on the unethical. This is not a correct and proper attitude from Mr Xuereb and the companies - group - he represents.

The Appeal Court judges should not - and I am sure, will not - be influenced by Mr Xuereb's letter on this subject. The point at issue is whether the bills issued by the Court Registrar - not by the lawyers - are correct or incorrect. The bills are of course issued on the values stated in the writ (or determinable from the documents in the proceedings) and reflect the issues involved in the merits of the lawsuit. The courts have to simply assess whether such workings are according to law and whether a literal interpretation or not is to be given for such workings.

As Mr Xuereb is surely aware, the bill for lawsuits is worked out and issued by the Court Registrar; in fact that is why his company has also sued the Court Registrar as defendant. The bill is not compiled by the lawyers. The lawyers merely forward the bill to the clients. Mr Xuereb's letter defends his company's position against lawyers whom he claims have issued an excessive bill - which therefore is not due - when he knows very well that the bill has not been the lawyer's product but the Court Registrar's.

And it is not yet finally decided whether the bill is excessive or not. I quote Mr Xuereb the "amount claimed by the lawyers" and "'absurd' size of the payment" is the result of the Court Registrar's workings and not a mere claim trumped up by the lawyers. Mr Xuereb's alleged purpose is to defend his company's name from being tarnished, but he has no compunction in trying to tarnish the lawyer's repute! What is good for the goose is not good for the gander in Mr Xuereb's case. This is not a correct and proper attitude from Mr Xuereb and the companies - group - he represents.

The Times has made two errors.

It has published a law report which in reality has no public national importance compared to other issues of a more humane and commercial value and it has done so incorrectly because it did not mention the appeal.

The second is that it published Mr Xuereb's letter in the format that it has when Mr Xuereb's points should, in my view, have been limited to simply stating that an appeal lies from the judgment and that there is another judgment in an identical case which is contrary to the one reported.

Mr Xuereb's pontification that the judgment which goes against his company is ultimately absurd should not have been stated and, much less, published. A two-sentence explanation would have been sufficient.

As to Mr Xuereb's concern about his company's - group's - image in the public eye as a result of this law report, I am sure that public opinion has long been decided upon. I dare say his letter does not help - and the more he writes the worse it can get.