A Maltese man living in Canada for the past 19 years has been granted the right to have a civil suit, filed against him by the former Telemalta Corporation, heard again once he has been duly served with a court summons.
Joseph Pavia, represented in court by lawyer Michael Grech, filed a constitutional application claiming that his fundamental rights had been breached when a defective service of a court summons back in 1998 denied him the right to a fair hearing.
Telemalta Corporation, now replaced by GO plc, had instituted a civil action against Mr Pavia which resulted in a judgment delivered in October 1998 ordering him to pay Lm492, equivalent to €1,146, to the telephone company.
However Mr Pavia, who emigrated to Canada shortly after the termination of the court case, only got to know of the judgment in 2009 when, following a failed bank transaction, a local bank informed him that his accounts had been blocked by a garnishee order in favour of GO plc.
Mr Pavia instituted a constitutional case against the Attorney General, GO plc and the Registrar of the Civil Courts wherein he claimed that his right to a fair hearing had been breached since he had never been notified to appear for the court hearing resulting in the judgment in favour of the service provider.
The First Hall, Civil Court, presided by Madame Justice Anna Felice, observed that although the court summons had been delivered at the Naxxar residence where Mr Pavia had lived before emigrating, the signature on the notice of service did not belong to Mr Pavia or any other person authorised to accept such service.
Both Mr Pavia and his wife denied having accepted the court summons. A handwriting expert also testified that the signature on the notice of summons was "completely different" from that of the spouses.
A Maltapost representative testified that the company was not in a position to provide information of the person who had signed the pink card 13 years earlier.
The court concluded that the evidence showed that the plaintiff had not been duly notified and could therefore not defend himself in court. This meant that his right to a fair hearing as safeguarded by the constitution and the European Convention had been violated.
The court annulled the 1998 judgment and ordered the acts to be sent back to the Magistrates' courts for the case to be reheard and for Mr Pavia to be duly notified. It also revoked the executive warrants issued in favour of GO plc.