Company objects to remote gaming legal notice

A company yesterday filed a judicial protest against the Prime Minister and the Lotteries and Gaming Authority.

The protest was filed by GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) in the First Hall of the Civil Court.

PMU said proceedings between it and Zeturf Limited, a private company registered in Malta, were pending. The Lotteries and Gaming Authority was involved in such proceedings.

PMU said it has obtained, by means of a decree by the First Hall of the Civil Court, an authorisation to enforce a judgment given on February 10 by the Regional Court of Paris, France, where Zeturf was ordered to pay the sum of €1,500 to PMU.

Subsequently, PMU obtained a precautionary garnishee order and served it on a number of financial institutions in order to safeguard its claims.

PMU was formally and informally informed that the Bank of Valletta, one of the said financial institutions, had frozen money which, although registered in the name of Zeturf, did not allegedly belong to it.

On May 9, Zeturf filed an application in the First Hall of the Civil Court asking the court to order that a clarification be made to the precautionary garnishee order.

That same day the court issued a decree ordering notification of the application to PMU with two days for the latter to file its reply.

PMU opposed the application because, apart from the fact that it was juridically incorrect for a court to be asked to qualify and clarify the obligations of third parties served with a garnishee order, no evidence had been produced to show that the clients account and trustee account did not contain money pertaining to Zeturf or due to it.

On May 17, the court upheld PMU's arguments and made it clear it did not deem it to be within the court's competence to give directions to third parties.

Therefore, the court abstained from taking cognisance of the request made in the application.

While Zeturf's application was still pending, the Prime Minister, after having consulted the Lotteries and Gaming Authority, published Legal Notice 110 of 2006, entitled Regulations of 2006 amending the Remote Gaming Regulations. This was published in the May 12 issue of the Government Gazette, that is, while the proceedings were still pending.

PMU claimed that the amendment introduced by the legal notice was in substance a copy of the request pending before the First Hall of the Civil Court, and went beyond the scope of such request in that it regulated both precautionary as well as executive garnishee orders.

Moreover, it appeared that the amendment was to have a retroactive effect since it provides that the said garnishee orders "shall not have any effect or be construed as ever having had any effect" on players' funds.

These circumstances, the wording used in the legal notice and the timing of its publication, prima facie reveal in a worrying manner that what Zeturf feared it would not obtain from the First Hall of the Civil Court it obtained via those against whom the judicial protest was being filed, by means of the legal notice that, in a clear and unequivocal manner, expressly addresses the issue that at the time was still pending before the First Hall of the Civil Court.

PMU, while reserving its position at law and all its rights arising out of garnishee order, held those against whom the judicial protest is being made responsible for all the damages it may suffer as a consequence of their actions.

Lawyers Franco Vassallo and Brigette Zammit signed the protest.