Restaurant wins damages over road works delay

The Court of Appeal has confirmed a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court in terms of which the Director of Roads was held responsible for the damages borne by a company as a result of delays in road works.

Fiorino D'Oro Co Ltd, which ran a restaurant in Naxxar Road, Salina, filed a writ against the roads director in 2001.

The company claimed that in April of that year the director had commenced trenching works in the road in which its restaurant, also called Fiorino d'Oro, was situated.

Considerable delays had occurred for these works to be carried out. The company claimed that the reason for the delay was the insufficient number of workmen engaged by the defendant and the manner in which the works had been planned. The first court was requested to hold the director responsible for the damages caused to the company as a result of the delays.

In its judgment the First Hall of the Civil Court declared that the director was responsible for the delays and for the consequent damages borne by the company.

The director was therefore ordered to pay the company Lm20,000 in damages.

The director filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.

The appeal court noted that this case was characterised by the total lack of interest shown by the Director of Roads in contesting the plaintiff company's claims.

After the director filed his pleas to the writ, and requested the calling into the suit of the contractor who had carried out the road works, neither the director nor his lawyer had ever attended the court sittings.

The director claimed in his appeal that the first court had incorrectly refused his request to call the contractor into the suit.

However, when this point was first raised before the First Hall of the Civil Court, the plaintiff had opposed this request. The first court refused to call in the contractor on the basis that, at that stage of the proceedings, it did not appear that the contractor had a juridical interest in the suit.

However, the first court delivered this ruling without prejudice to what might result at a later stage of the proceedings. This decree had obviously left the director the option of pursuing his request to call the contractor in, but the director had failed to do so.

When examining the judgment delivered by the first court the Court of Appeal noted that no incorrect application or interpretation of the law had taken place.

It resulted that the director had permitted the road works to take far longer than was necessary, and he had therefore to make good the damages incurred as a result of this delay.

The court concluded by confirming the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court which had ordered the Director of Roads to pay Lm20,000 in damages to the company.