HSBC Bank was cleared of responsibility for the psychological trauma suffered by a former employee who was involved in an attempted hold-up 10 years ago.

Victor Cassar, who worked with HSBC Bank's security division, had filed a court case holding the bank responsible for the trauma he suffered when a security van he was in was shot at by thieves in Cospicua on July 12, 1999.

Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court, found that the bank had taken the necessary safety precautions when it equipped the security van with bullet-proof glass and armour plating. Mr Cassar had failed to comply with the bank's security regulations and had contributed towards the danger he faced when he failed to drive away.

The court was told that Mr Cassar's job involved distributing money to the bank's branches. On the day of the incident, he had to deliver Lm200,000 (about €466,000) in cash and, together with three other bank employees, set off in the security van to the Cospicua branch.

Due to refurbishment, the bank had temporarily housed its branch at St George Band Club. When making a delivery at the permanent branch, the security van could park exactly in front of the bank's main door. However, according to Mr Cassar, this was not possible in the case of the temporary branch and the van had to park about 70 metres away.

Mr Cassar was in the van when he heard noises outside and noted that a hold-up was taking place in the square. He phoned the police headquarters and a hooded man fired a shot at the van's window but no one was injured because the bullet was stopped by the shielded glass.

Still, Mr Cassar claimed he suffered psychological trauma as a result of the incident and had been forced to take early retirement. He further claimed that the bank was responsible for the damages he had sustained as it failed to provide him with a safe system in which to work.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco, however, found that the bank had carried out its legal obligations. Mr Cassar had been provided with a well-equipped security van that had bullet-proof glass and armour plating to its body work. This van had saved the lives of Mr Cassar and his fellow employees when they were shot at.

In this case, the incident was the result of criminal behaviour by a third party and an employer was not expected to predict such criminal acts.

The court added that HSBC had given specific instructions to its employees about what they had to do in the event of a hold-up. However, Mr Cassar, who was responsible to see that such instructions were followed, had failed to do what he was supposed to do. He had, therefore, placed himself and his fellow employees in danger, the court ruled.