A court has turned down a request for a warrant for prohibitory injunction filed by theatre director Sean Buhagiar to stop Mario Philip Azzopardi from dismissing him as director of Stagun Teatru Malti.

The director of Ħabbilni Ħa Nirbaħ had quit during the play's production week in February after clashing with Mr Azzopardi, who is also artistic director of the Valletta 2018 Foundation. Mr Buhagiar had also resigned from his position as V18 deputy artistic director following the breakdown in his relationship with Mr Azzopardi.

Mr Azzopardi and Mr Buhagiar had jointly set up Stagun Teatru Malti in 2014 to "unite their experiences, contacts and intellectual capabilities in the arts and cultural sector".

Mr Azzopardi is the company's majority shareholder with 750 ordinary shares while Mr Buhagiar owns 500 ordinary shares.

Following the clash, the plaintiff argued that he was illegally and abusively stopped from having access to the company's books, including documentation relating to the company's income and expenses. This was also taking place in the context of efforts made by the two parties' lawyers to try and find a solution, including the possibility of Mr Buhagiar transferring and selling his shares to Mr Azzopardi. To do so, Mr Buhagiar would need to peruse the company's books to prepare a valuation of his shares but was being stopped from doing so.

Mr Azzopardi had subsequently called a meeting for April 20 with the aim of removing Mr Buhagiar from his role as director. Mr Buhagiar then filed a request for a warrant of prohibitory injunction against Mr Azzopardi and his wife Therese, which was provisionally upheld on April 18.

Mr Azzopardi argued that, following arguments between the two, Mr Buhagiar had abandoned the production Habbilni Ha Nirbah on the eve of the play and had threatened to halt the production, despite the fact that all tickets were sold.

Everyone who was involved in the arts scene knew that the public should never be involved or used in artistic quarrels, Mr Azzopardi argued. As majority shareholder, it was his right to call the meeting.

Madam Justice Miriam Hayman held that Mr Azzopardi was acting within his rights enshrined by law, which stated that he could remove Mr Buhagiar from the post of director without needing to give a reason for his dismissal.

There was no need for a warrant of prohibitory injunction because Mr Buhagiar had other remedies at his disposal to turn to in order to contest the decision to remove him, the court ruled.

Mr Buhagiar's request to permanently uphold the warrant of prohibitory injunction was therefore turned down.

SEAN BUHAGIAR'S REACTION

In a reaction later, Mr Buhagiar said the court's decision was taken on the ground that he has other remedies available at law to contest the move towards his removal. He was now considering those alternative remedies and in the absence of a settlement would be proceeding accordingly.

“It ought to be clarified that I procured the issue of the precautionary warrant of prohibitory injunction given the limited options available to me at the time, having received notice of a (general0 meeting convened specifically for this purpose. I had already offered to exit the company at fair value since I no longer share Mr Azzopardi’s artistic vision and work ethic but disparity of views is delaying agreement. Meanwhile steps were taken to deny my access to information pertaining to the company – including information related to public funds of which the company is a beneficiary – and this triggered a number of concerns.” said Mr Buhagiar

He vehemently denied that he threatened to stop the production. “When I left, I left for the good of the production, and not to stop it. I had said publicly that I wished the best of luck to the actors and the writer. In fact it was Mr Azzopardi who threatened to stop the production if I do not return. When I was told that Mr Azzopardi refused my offer to continue my work without his interference, I only asked for my previously agreed payment to be guaranteed in writing if my unfinished work was to be used. If this was perceived as a threat, then it means that someone did not want to pay me. I could have stopped it if I wanted to, but I would have never done that to the actors”, he added.