Court dismisses appeal over litigation costs

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal over litigation costs in a case over possession of a passport issued in the name of an underage Russian boy.

Irina Malikova had filed her writ in the First Hall of the Civil Court on behalf of International Charity Society against Rita Scicluna.

The plaintiff had requested the court to order Ms Scicluna to deliver the passport issued in the name of Ivan Zaitsev to her.

The court heard that the child lived in an orphanage in the Russian town of Bezetsk and had been brought to Malta, together with a number of other children, to spend a few days with local families.

The trip had taken place as a result of collaboration between the Russian Education Department and the Maltese authorities.

While in Malta the children were under the plaintiff's control, as the representative of the charity, and Ms Malikova retained both the children's passports and their airline tickets.

In this particular case the child was to remain in Malta for longer than originally envisaged and Ms Malikova had therefore to apply for an extension to his visa.

Ms Malikova had requested Ms Scicluna to collect the child's passport from the police, and this because Ms Scicluna used to assist the Russian authorities to effect the children's trips on a voluntary basis.

In this particular case, however, Ms Scicluna retained the child's passport and refused to deliver it to Ms Malikova.

The first court noted in its judgment that Ms Malikova had been entrusted with the children's passports by the Russian orphanage, and that she was responsible not only for the children's well-being but also for their documentation.

Ms Scicluna, like any other host family, was bound to ensure the child's well-being, but in order to so do she did not need to retain his passport.

The fact that Ms Scicluna had commenced proceedings for the adoption of the child did not entitle her to violate the arrangements that had been made for the child's holiday in Malta, nor did she require to retain his passport.

The child, said the first court, was in the overriding patronage of the charity represented by Ms Malikova, and it was therefore plaintiff who was to keep his passport.

The court therefore dismissed Ms Scicluna's pleas and ordered her to deliver the passport to Ms Malikova within two days.

The court did not award costs in this case but ordered Ms Scicluna to pay the court registry expenses.

Both parties lodged an appeal from this judgment to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.

Ms Malikova felt aggrieved by the fact that the first court had not ordered Ms Scicluna to pay the costs of the litigation while on her part Ms Scicluna claimed that she ought not to have been ordered to pay the court registry fees.

The Court of Appeal noted that despite their protestations of charity, both parties were disputing the costs of the litigation.

The court added that the courts were not bound at law to order an unsuccessful litigant to pay the judicial costs and the courts could depart from this for valid reasons.

In this case the Court of Appeal felt that, from an examination of the records of the proceedings, the first court had decided that it had valid reasons not to award costs.

The first court had based its decision on the fact that when Ms Scicluna had requested some information from Ms Malikova, the latter had not replied to her.

The Court of Appeal added that Ms Scicluna had lost the first case and had had all her pleas dismissed.

She could not expect therefore not to pay the court registry fees.