A court yesterday ruled that a precautionary warrant ought not to be issued to pressurise an alleged debtor into accepting his creditor’s claims against him when such claims had not been confirmed by the courts.

In an application against Health Managers (UK) Ltd, Nita Gavin told the court that in 2007 the company had issued a warrant of seizure against her and had seized her car which was given for safekeeping to a third party.

However, the company had not followed up this warrant within the legal time limit and the courts had issued a counter-warrant.

Ms Gavin said that she had been deprived of the use of her car for herself and for her minor child for three months. She requested the First Hall of the Civil Court to impose a penalty on the company in terms of law.

On its part the company submitted that it had wished to reach a compromise agreement with Ms Gavin.

In his judgement, Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon said that if the company was correct in its submissions then it ought not to have issued the precautionary warrant of seizure against Ms Gavin.

It was a legal principle that a warrant ought not to be issued to weaken an adversary’s position. The issue of the warrant by the company was aimed at causing Ms Gavin to suffer inconvenience and humiliation.

The court added that precautionary warrants were intended to safeguard a creditor’s claim but they were not intended to be a means whereby a creditor could put pressure on a debtor so that the latter would accept the creditor’s claims.

The court ordered the company to pay Ms Gavin a penalty of €1,164.69.