A cooperative providing transport services to people with special needs unsuccessfully tried to stop Transport Malta from allowing competitors to instal locally-made tail lifts in their minivans.

The Transport for Disabled Persons Cooperative (TDP) asked the court to issue an injunction in an attempt to stop Transport Malta from registering vehicles which have tail lifts installed in Malta without first requesting a certificate of conformity issued by the automobile manufacturer.

The cooperative insisted that Transport Malta should only register those vehicles which obtained certification that the tail lifts were not dangerous to both passengers and the driver.

The application was filed on June 22 when the cooperative claimed that a competitor was urging people interested in purchasing a minivan to instal tail lifts in Malta and offer services similar to those sought by people using a wheelchair.

The cooperative built its case almost entirely on the threat of competition in the same field

Transport Malta reacted, saying the certification being mentioned by the cooperative would affect third parties and not its own fleet. Moreover, the transport watchdog said it followed the law to the letter with regard to the requirements for the registration of vehicles offering to do work similar to that offered by the cooperative.

Mr Justice Joseph Micallef ruled that the cooperative had not been stopped or precluded from going about its own business. As a result, he decided that the cooperative had not satisfied the mandatory conditions for an injunction to be issued.

He noted that, where an injunction was requested against the government or against a public authority, the applicants had to show what act the court was expected to prohibit as well as prove that the damage that would be suffered as a result of such action would not be proportionate to the inconvenience caused to the other party if the act were not stopped.

Though the first condition was fulfilled, the second was not because the cooperative was at no point precluded from running its business, the court ruled.

“The cooperative built its case almost entirely on the threat of competition in the same field but this is not enough to warrant the issue of an injunction, especially in the environment of a liberalised market,” Mr Justice Micallef concluded, turning down the cooperative’s request.