The Court of Appeal, composed of Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri, in the case ‘Josephine Saliba v Saveria Camilleri’ on June 26, 2015, ordered that compensation for servigi should amount to €20 per week in view of a number of factors and, in particular, to the nature of the services, their frequency and duration, the degree of relations between the parties, the inconvenience suffered and time and expenses incurred by plaintiff.

Josephine Saliba claimed that for four-and-a-half years she assisted 84-year-old Saveria Camilleri, her uncle’s wife, in a number of ways.

From 2005, she visited her daily to keep her company. She purchased milk for her, drove her to appointments and to purchase appliances. She did her shopping and bought her medicines. Camilleri’s Telecare and burglar alarm would ring on her number in emergency.

On a few occasions, she slept at her house, washed her and attended to her when she fell. She would also accompany her to the bank. She did all this in the hope of reward and when Camilleri asked her to stop visiting her, she demanded compensation as she had never been paid for her services throughout the years.

Faced with this situation, Saliba proceeded to take legal proceedings:

• To declare that she rendered services to Camilleri and merited compensation;

• To liquidate the amount due as compensation and to condemn her to pay this amount.

Camilleri, in reply, pleaded that she had already paid Saliba. She said that she offered her €1,000 which she declined to accept as she expected €23,000 which amount, she said, was exaggerated and unfounded.

Camilleri was house-bound but not bedridden. She could move around her home and received assistance from a government helper six hours per week, who did the chores around the house for her. Camilleri maintained that she would pay her for calling for her, in order to take her to appointments, to the bank, a pharmacy or to purchase appliances, but did not produce receipts. It was only when she was ill that Saliba cooked for her.

Camilleri said that she changed her will to bequeath three fields to her as well as her one-half share of her residence but told her to stop visiting her after Saliba asked for an additional property.

The court was convinced that Saliba did provide services to Camilleri without receiving any compensation.

It appeared that Camilleri was very careful with her money and the fact that she left some property to Saliba in her will indicated her intention to compensate her.

The court also considered that Camilleri was not incontinent, not totally dependent on Saliba, that she had a helper and although she bathed her a few times, this was a rare occasion. It also noted that in November she would clean her husband’s grave and place flowers over the grave.

The Court of Appeal noted that Camilleri decided to terminate relations with Saliba without paying her any compensation

The court felt that Saliba was a help to her and kept her company.

In ‘Gużeppi Borg et v Emanuel Azzopardi’ it was held that in an action for servigi, there were two elements: (1) a quasi contract; and (2) the presumption that services were bestowed for payment. Compensation was due not only when it was agreed but also if it appeared that the person providing his/her services, expected payment. The court had to consider the intention of such person at the time when the services were granted.

In ‘Sarah Caruana v Francis Mallia’, it was held that no one was presumed to give his services for free.

In ‘Tessie Micallef et v Lawrence Galea’, the court explained there were several criteria for this court to consider in order to liquidate the compensation due:

1) The degree of affinity between the parties;

2) The frequency of the services;

3) The nature of the services;

4) The inconvenience suffered by the person who rendered his/her services;

5) The extent of the skill and specialisation to grant these services;

6) Whether any expenses were incurred by the person who gave his/her services;

7) The reason of the person who benefitted from these services.

In ‘Anthony Catania pro et noe et v Maria Agius’, it was held that in local case law, compensation was never a big amount as services were granted to a close family member and, in addition, the claim for payment was on a quasi-contract and not upon a contract of services. Compensation was not related to the services. Several factors were to be considered – so that compensation was not equivalent in value to the services rendered.

In this case the court said Saliba assisted her aunt, Camilleri, but this was not a big sacrifice. She dedicated her time, which she would have otherwise had spent with her family, to visit her aunt even on Sundays. She did not need any particular skill and nor did she incur expenses.

The first court did not feel that Saliba deserved €23,000 and awarded her €3,000.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) (Superior Jurisdiction) of September 30, 2011, Saliba entered an appeal, claiming a greater amount of compensation. She also objected to being ordered to pay a quarter of judicial expenses.

The Court of Appeal noted that Camilleri decided to terminate relations with Saliba without paying her any compensation. As the wife of her maternal uncle, Saliba did not feel obliged to care for her uncle’s wife. It said that compensation was never very great as frequently the services were rendered owing to family relations and, in view of the fact that the request for payment was based on quasi contract, the quantum of compensation was not equivalent in monetary terms to the services, as other factors had to be considered.

In ‘Maria Lourdes Brincat v Giuseppe Brincat’ dated November 29, 2013, the court liquidated compensation as €15 per week.

In liquidating compensation the court would consider:

• The frequency and nature of the services;

• The means of the defendant;

• The relationship between plaintiff and defendant;

• Whether plaintiff suffered inconvenience and costs which she had not be reimbursed.

The court felt that in this case €12.82 per week was too low. It did not result that Camilleri paid her for certain expenses. Saliba’s services were of a certain importance for Camilleri and in this respect the Court of Appeal was of the opinion that it should increase the compensation to €20 per week (€4,680). This court did not wish to disturb the Court of First Instance’s decision on judicial costs.

For these reasons, on June 26, 2015, the Court of Appeal gave judgment by ordering Camilleri to pay €4,680 compensation to Saliba and confirmed the remaining part of the first court’s decision.

Camilleri was also ordered to pay two-thirds of the Court of Appeal’s judicial expenses, while the rest was to be borne by Saliba.

Dr Karl Grech Orr is a partner at Ganado Advocates.