Couple objects to collision cases being heard by arbitration

A couple is objecting that its traffic collision cases go to arbitration on grounds that a court has ruled that such a forced system of redress was anti-constitutional.

Jeanette Marie and Alexander Van Reeven filed a request for the issue of a warrant of prohibitory injunction so that the court would stop two pending collision cases from being heard before the Malta Arbitration Centre.

They quoted a recent judgment in which the First Hall of the Civil Court found that forced arbitration imposed by law in traffic collision cases was in violation of an individual's fundamental human right to a fair hearing.

The judgment was delivered on May 29 following a constitutional application by Joseph Muscat against the Prime Minister, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General. Mr Muscat had been involved in a traffic accident in 2007 and was sued for damages by an insurance company using forced arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Act.

According to Mr Muscat such forced arbitration did not provide him with a fair hearing by an impartial and independent tribunal.

Unlike the law courts, arbitration centres were not covered by constitutional safeguards.

The court declared forced arbitration anti-constitutional. The Prime Minister appealed the judgment and the Constitutional Court has yet to pronounce sentence.

In their request, the Van Reevens claimed that, given this scenario, the arbitration centre did not guarantee a safe hearing. They, therefore, called on the court to stop the proceedings.

Lawyers José Herrera and David Camilleri signed the application.