A woman who suffered a permanent disability and lost her daughter in the collapse of the Save On supermarket 24 years ago was awarded €5,000 in moral damages because it took Civil Courts 20 years to decide her case.

In a constitutional application against the Attorney General, Iris Cassar and her husband Michael, noted that their daughter, 27, had died in the Paola supermarket collapse in July 1990 while Mrs Cassar, who was 45 at the time, suffered from a broken thigh and calf bone and bruising along her spine.

She was pulled unconscious from the debris and mounds of food items. Besides the physical injuries, she also suffered psychologically and had to deal with depression.

The Cassars’ suit for damages had been assigned to no fewer than seven judges

Without seeking the advice of an architect, the owner of the Save On supermarket in Paola, Francis Gauci, had designed and built the internal shelving and false ceiling that had collapsed under the weight of the packed shelves.

In September 1992, the Cassars had filed an action for damages against the supermarket owner. But the case was only decided by the First Hall of the Civil Court in March 2011. An appeal was filed and the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in November 2012.

That meant it took the courts more than 20 years to decide on their action for damages. The Cassars said in their plea they felt it was unreasonable because the case presented no extraordinary difficulties.

The duration of the court case violated their fundamental human right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and they requested the First Hall of the Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, to provide them with a remedy in the form of moral damages. Madam Justice Anna Felice said the European Convention of Human Rights provided that every person was entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.

In order to see whether this right had been violated, each case had to be examined to evaluate its nature and complexity, the actions of the parties and the manner in which the judicial system treated it. The First Hall pointed out that the Cassars’ suit for damages had been assigned to no fewer than seven judges.

Five legal experts, one architect and three medical doctors had been appointed by the court to assist it.

It also resulted that the action had been connected with two other court cases on the same accident.

The Cassars always used the same lawyer but Save On had engaged four different lawyers.

Madam Justice Felice noted that, although the lawsuit was serious by its very nature, it was not particularly complex. The case had been a victim of a complicated and inadequate system of administration of justice. The time it took to conclude the case was not justified.