Gaming Authority's appeal declared null and void

An appeal lodged by the Gaming and Lotteries Authority from a decision enforcing a judgment of a Parisian court was yesterday declared to be null and void by the Court of Appeal.

The court heard that French company GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) had filed a case against Zeturf Ltd and had requested the enforcement of a decision delivered by the Court of Appeal of Paris against Zeturf Ltd in Malta.

The First Hall of the Civil Court upheld the request on March 16.

The authority appealed from the decision, and the Court of Appeal, composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Anton Depasquale and Mr Justice Albert J. Magri, ruled that it had to see whether the authority, as an interested third party, was entitled to appeal.

The court said that the authority had not been a party to the proceedings before the first court but was now appealing from the judgment which had rendered the French judgment enforceable in Malta.

PMU had submitted that the authority was not entitled to appeal, as the right of appeal was limited to the parties to the suit.

The council regulation in terms of which the enforcement was requested clearly stipulated that the appeal was limited to either party to the suit.

When regulations referred to parties other than the original litigants, this would be clearly specified.

Furthermore, the regulation governing enforcement of foreign judgments was intended to provide a swift and simple procedure to keep matters as simple and as quick as possible. The right of appeal could not be extended by application of local laws of procedure which might allow a third party to appeal. Interested third parties could not challenge an enforcement order, even where such third parties were allowed to so do in terms of local law.

The court therefore dismissed the authority's appeal as null and void.

The court of appeal also dismissed an application made by Zeturf Ltd to produce further witnesses in the appeal stage.

The witnesses were the Prime Minister, Parliamentary Secretary Tonio Fenech, lawyer Anthony Axisa, the Attorney General, lawyer Joseph Zammit Maempel, an expert in French law and a representative of Zeturf Ltd.

In yesterday's judgment, the court said that in terms of the regulation, it could only overturn a decision on the enforceability of a foreign judgment on very limited grounds, one of which was that the judgment was manifestly contrary to the public policy in Malta.

There was no need for any of the witnesses indicated by Zeturf Ltd to testify about what public policy in Malta was about internet gaming services. The court itself would determine what was manifestly contrary to public policy, after examining the relevant laws and legal principles.

However, the court added that the evidence given by the Attorney General, a representative of Zeturf Ltd and an expert in French law might be relevant.

Thus, these three witnesses were declared admissible.