Last Saturday’s pyrotechnics display at Marsaxlokk, which formed part of the Malta Fireworks Festival, only went ahead after a court turned down a request to halt it the day before.
The request for an injunction was filed by Anthony Montebello, whose property lies next to some fields where the fireworks were set off. He said he did not want a repeat of last year, when the event posed a danger to his property.
Claiming the biggest risk he faced was the surrounding fields catching fire, he suggested an alternative site to the festival organisers, the Malta Tourism Authority.
This year, the plan to close off the surrounding roads as a safety measure would actually increase the risk because he was going to be deprived of access, Mr Montebello said in his application.
Moreover, the place where the fireworks were going to be set off did not fall outside the buffer zone as laid down in the law, he added.
The tourism authority countered that they had all the necessary permits to organise the fireworks festival, which was taking place on three dates.
The whole event was covered by an insurance policy of up to €1 million. Three fire engines would be on site, together with civil protection personnel to ensure safety procedures were adhered to.
Mr Montebello’s property, the MTA said, was not in a residential area and it was at least 40 metres distant from where the fireworks were going to be set off. All the distances required by law were going to be observed as the area was not residential and the public road was going to be closed.
Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon visited the site and noted that Mr Montebello’s land covered around 30 tumoli. Two red flags marked the place where the fireworks were going to be set off, more than 40 metres away from a set of three rooms.
In his decision, Mr Justice Zammit McKeon said he could not establish how powerful the blast effect would be but was almost certain that if it was typical of other festivals, it would be “substantial”.
Mr Montebello’s site was exposed to the effects and this posed a risk. The main issue was the potential risk of damage to a place he owned – even if it was only where he kept animals.
The court noted there were a number of preventive procedures in place and Mr Montebello could take remedial action if there was any damage. He still had a number of remedies in hand without an injunction.
Cancelling one of the dates of the international festival after all the preparations that had gone into it and all the people and costs involved was “manifestly disproportionate” when compared to Mr Montebello’s interests, the court ruled.