A group of former Mid-Med Bank employees have lost a case they had instituted against the bank claiming they were owed a share of the pension fund liquidated in 1987.

Madam Justice Anna Felice ruled that the former employees were not entitled to a share of the fund because they had not contributed to the fund through a reduction in their salaries.

This was the second similar case instituted by the group of 297 employees. The first was turned down in 2007 and this decision was confirmed on appeal in 2010.

The court heard how the issue dates to 1975 when discussions were held between Mid-Med Bank, the Central Bank (which represented the government) and the unions, over the fate of employees of Barclays Bank, which was to become Mid-Med Bank.

They claimed that their salaries were reduced with the changeover, as the government insisted it could not increase wages because anomalies with other government bodies would arise. To compensate, Mid-Med Bank agreed to set up a non-contributory pension fund for employees, putting aside the equivalent of around 20 per cent of employees' salaries in the fund annually.

The bank rebutted that since the employees had not contributed to the fund, they were not entitled to a stake. Madam Justice Felice upheld this argument and added that there were no new facts that emerged which could convince the court to depart from the conclusions reached by the court in the identical case heard by another judge.

Moreover, she also noted that none of the 297 former employees or their heirs, who had instituted the proceedings, had brought any evidence to prove that they were, in fact, former Mid-Med Bank employees.

Lawyer Franco Vassallo appeared for the bank.