Judges rebuke transport watchdog over frivolous appeal

The Constitutional Court yesterday confirmed a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court following a constitutional application filed by David Axiaq against the Public Transport Authority (ADT).

By a court decree of December 2004, the Malta Maritime Authority (MMA) was also called into the suit.

In his application, filed in 1997, Mr Axiaq claimed that he had applied for a licence to use a passenger boat in Dwejra. The licence was issued in 1996 by the ADT. However, in the following year Mr Axiaq was informed by the ADT that the licence would not be renewed for 1997 on the basis that it had been inadvertently issued to him originally.

Mr Axiaq claimed he had been discriminated against in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights and that his right to a fair hearing had been violated in contravention of both the convention and the Constitution. The first court noted that Mr Axiaq had been issued with a permit in 1996 and that this permit had never been revoked. The ADT had refused to renew the permit for 1997 on the basis that it ought not to have been issued originally as this was against the authority's policies. However, no clear evidence of the existence of this policy had been produced. The policy guidelines mentioned by the ADT were not put down in writing.

It resulted that after eight permits for passenger boats had been issued, the police had refused to issue any more licences and Dwejra was designated as an area closed to new licences. It did not result who had taken such decisions.

When the ADT took over the licensing function from the police it continued to operate the same policy that it became aware of by hearsay.

The court ruled that this was not a proper policy as it had no reasonable foundation and it was up to the ADT to carry out detailed and comprehensive studies to justify its actions. The court added that the applicant's right to a fair hearing had also been violated as a result of the refusal on the part of the ADT to renew Mr Axiaq's licence.

In liquidating the damages sustained by Mr Axiaq, the court noted that the applicant used to work as a full-time boatman. He lost his work, with serious financial repercussions to him and his family, as a direct consequence of the revocation of his licence.

In conclusion, the court had ordered the MMA to renew Mr Axiaq's licence while the ADT was ordered to pay Mr Axiaq damages to the tune of Lm7,000.

The ADT appealed to the Constitutional Court which ruled that the appeal was vexatious and frivolous and ordered the ADT to pay double the costs of the litigation.

The ADT submitted that the first court had ordered the Public Transport Authority to pay damages. But such authority no longer existed and its functions had been assumed by the Malta Transport Authority.

Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti declared that this submission was incorrect, for all that had happened to the ADT was a change in name.

The authority's appeal was nothing but an almost fraudulent attempt to evade the consequences of the first court's judgment, the Constitutional Court rules.

The court added that in the meantime a licence had been issued by the MMA so that Mr Axiaq could operate a boat. Finally, the appellate court confirmed the judgment in respect of the ADT and ordered it to pay double costs.

The MMA was ordered to commence procedures to ensure that Mr Axiaq's boat was in conformity with the law and if that were the case to issue him with a licence.