The excellent leader about “the big bang approach to justice delayed” (March 19) is goodnews indeed.

The shortening of time to have a legal point settled in court is the greatest need of our legal system, hand in hand with the doctrine accentuated by the European Court of Human Rights.

In effect, the Convention carries a reminder that the contracting States have the duty to make sure that their court’s system is able to meet expectations, with their guns against unnecessary delay, a priority above all others.

Without prejudice to this great need so much complained of, however, it is equally important for the judiciary to judge cases correctly, grounded on specific laws; and not on a whim, apparently to expedite, to beat the clock.

It is deeply felt in legal circles that our beloved and hardworking Minister of Justice should take special heed against the acceptance of a current fallacy; that, if a judgement-loser so declared by our Court of Appeal files an application in Europe against Malta for alleged ‘unfair hearing’, the judgement-creditor, so declared by our Court of Appeal, has to sit and wait, suspending executive action till the loser’s case against Malta is settled.

This champions delay, invites a multiplication of cases and puts a heavier burden on the administration of justice; in essence totally illegal and unwarranted, creating a loser’s paradise devoid of equity.

Our law is clear.

A judgment shall not operate to the prejudice of any person who neither personally, nor through the person under whom he claims, nor through his lawful agent, was party to the cause determined by such judgement.

All in this light, it is felt that, if the minister can eradicate this fallacy, his telling intervention will be his finest hour.