A notary who failed to pass on to the government €24,500 in stamp duties and taxes was ordered by the court to refund the amount to his clients when the transfer of a property was never registered.

The case was filed two years ago by Jane Agius, Joseph Agius, Antoinette Naeli Agius, Julie Muscat and Julian Agius, who were given a property by their father after their mother’s death. They complained that the notary had failed to settle the tax bills, though they had given him the money due to the government in 2010.

The notary, Pierre Falzon, initially argued in court that his only obligation was towards the government and not his clients. He also insisted that the claims against him were baseless because he had done all that was expected of him by law to register the deed of sale. Consequently, he should not be held liable for shortcomings by third parties, he argued.

Dr Falzon had also pointed out that his clients had indicated neither the date on which the deed of transfer had been signed nor when they had transferred the money to him.

The notary initially argued in court that his only obligation was towards the government and not his clients

The court heard that even after the case was taken to court the property owners gave one last chance to Dr Falzon but to no avail. Jane Agius testified that the notary had not even registered the causa mortis after their mother passed away and lamented that this resulted in fines being imposed on them.

In her decision, Madam Justice Jacqueline Padovani Grima noted that the notary had never contradicted his clients’ testimony.

Dr Falzon subsequently admitted in court that he had neither filed the causa mortis nor registered the property transfer with the Public Registry. He noted that, for the contract to be registered, it would necessitate the government notary to file an application before the Notarial Revisions Tribunal.

Due to a freezing order against him, such option was not possible unless somebody else would cover the expenses, the notary had told the court.

In the wake of Dr Falzon’s admission, the judge upheld the request by the property owners to be refunded the money given to him six years ago.

In addition, the court rejected Dr Falzon’s request to be given adequate time to repay the money, saying that such a concession would not be fair to his clients who were incurring fines.