The Civil Court has adjusted the terms of warrants of seizure and prohibitory injunction issued against the presumed heirs of late industrialist Adrian Bajada, who are facing a claim for €1.9 million by Multi Packaging Ltd, of which he was a director.

Mary Rose Pace in her own name and on behalf of her two children, in an application noted that a court, at the request of Multi Packaging Ltd, had issued warrants of seizure and prohibitory injunction against her and her children for €1,940,661, which funds, according to the company, were misappropriated and illegally taken by Mr Bajada when he served as director. The warrants was served 221 times and covered bank deposits and property.

The woman and her children said the warrants should not be kept in force, not so much for the assets of the late Mr Bajada but in their own personal regard, even though, they pointed out, intensive checks had to be made as the company's allegations were conveniently made after Mr Bajada passed away.

It still needed to be ascertained whether Mr Bajada was actually a 'cover' for the company for reasons of tax evasion since it was impossible for a director to appropriate so much money for himself without anyone noticing.

Ms Pace further pointed out that she and her children, as presumptive heirs of Mr Bajada had still not accepted the inheritance. However they argued that the warrant of seizure had paralysed their ordinary life since they could not use credit cards or banking facilities. They also had no access to their personal funds.  Nor had they been able to use their medical insurance

The court in its decision said the rights of the company had been considered in a preliminary manner during the procedure for the granting of the warrants, and the court agreed with the conclusion.

While a more detailed study would be made by a court when it considered the merits of the company's claim, the court said it had to maintain a balance between the two sides.

The amount claimed by the company was such that it was difficult to avoid inconvenience for those affected by the warrants. However the amounts held in the personal amounts of the applicants were so small, that they would hardly affect the eventual outcome of the case. Indeed, the parties had agreed that the personal assets could be released from the warrants.

Therefore, while the warrants would remain in place, the court upheld the request to release the personal accounts of the presumed heirs and the health insurance.

 

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.