A warrant of prohibitory injunction intended to disrupt the upcoming celebrations to mark St Patrick's Day, was "completely wrong", the mayor and executive secretary of the St Julian's council declared.
In a reply filed before the First Hall of the Civil Court, lawyer Stefano Filletti, on behalf of the St Julian's council, countered the arguments put forward by EW Enterprises Ltd, Tigi Complex Ltd and IE Ltd. in their application for the provisional warrant.
The whole issue revolved around the issue of a permit by the council in favour of Philip Gatt, on behalf of Massive Promotions, for the latter to organise the setting up of street stands for the sale of beverages during the St Patrick's celebrations in the St Julian's area.
Dr Filletti pointed out that Mr Gatt had, upon a personal initiative and back in September 2016, requested authorisation to organise a special event to mark St Patrick's Day in the locality.
This was a private proposal similar to those involving other celebrations and spectacles previously organised within the same entertainment hub, the court was told.
In their reply, the defendants argued that the prohibitory injunction demanded by the plaintiffs lacked a valid basis since it was intended to stop the council from issuing permits when in actual fact the permits had already been issued. "There is nothing to be inhibited," the defendants claimed.
Moreover, the plaintiffs had failed to prove their juridical interest in the matter, as well as any prejudice allegedly suffered on account of the council's decisions.
In reality, the plaintiffs had suffered "no prejudice" since they too had been granted a permit to set up stands outside their own establishments to participate in the proposed activities on March 17. However, the plaintiffs had failed to declare this in their application for the prohibitory injunction.
“How could the plaintiffs allege that the local council had granted exclusive rights to Philip Gatt when other parties, including the plaintiffs themselves, had also acquired a permit to set up drinks stands,” the defendants continued.
The plaintiffs had also failed to prove their "vague and generic allegation" that the permit to Mr Gatt had been issued illegally since it went against tendering regulations and permit laws. In their application for the warrant, the plaintiffs had provided no valid explanation and no reference to the specific regulations allegedly breached by the council.
In their reply, the defendants categorically denied demanding money from Mr Gatt, pointing out that the €2,000 sum demanded was intended to cover public cleansing and possible repair works which the council would have to carry out in the area once the celebrations were over.
This was a reasonable sum when bearing in mind the vast area over which the celebrations would be spread out.
The only reason why the plaintiffs were demanding the warrant was because they expected to have exclusive rights to sell their wares during the celebrations, the defendants concluded.