Lawrence Grech and others had asked the Civil Court to liquidate the damages they had suffered. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi

A civil case for compensation filed by victims of clerical abuse will continue after a court rejected a request by two former priests to allow them to file a statement of defence as they had missed the deadline.

As the priests had failed to reply to the submissions made by 10 victims within the stipulated time frame they were technically prohibited from contesting the case.

Godwin Scerri, 78, and Charles Pulis, 69, were respectively sentenced to five and six years imprisonment for sexually abusing boys in their care at St Joseph Home, in Santa Venera, more than two decades ago.

Mr Pulis was defrocked during the proceedings and Mr Scerri’s defrocking followed the court judgment in August 2011, which was confirmed on appeal a month later.

Lawrence Grech, Joseph Magro, Leonard Camilleri, David Cassar, Noel Dimech, Angelo Spiteri, Raymond Azzopardi, Charles Falzon, Phillip Cauchi and Joseph Mangion asked the First Hall of the Civil Court to liquidate the damages they had suffered.

Lawyers said the law required a person to file a reply to a civil claim within a specific time, generally 20 days from being notified of the case. If that did not happen, one would be unable to submit a written reply, although the court would still hear that person to guarantee a fair trial.

Once the statutory time window elapsed, and after they sought legal advice, the former priests filed a request for the court to allow them to still file their submission in writing but Mr Justice Joseph Micallef rejected the request. He said they had failed to convince the court that the reply was not filed through no fault of their own and due to circumstances beyond their control.

The judge heard that Mr Pulis and Mr Scerri received the notice of the case when they were in jail. They said they had been under the impression that the matter was being tackled by the Missionary Society of St Paul, the order to which they belonged. However, the order said it had been clear that it was not paying for their legal expenses and would neither cover their lawyers’ fees.