The Prime Minister’s court case to recoup money and land granted to Marco Gaffarena in exchange for half a palazzo in Old Mint Street, Valletta, was likely to turn out to be more complicated than it seemed, according to top lawyers in the field.
The complexity meant there was a “50-50” chance of winning such a case, as it all boiled down to the strength of the evidence being presented in court.
Several lawyers, who spoke to this newspaper on condition of anonymity, said the case was not the first of its sort in which the court was being asked to nullify a contract on the basis of a mistake.
“It has happened before and it will continue happening but it all depends on the evidence presented in court,” one lawyer said.
It has happened before and it will continue happening but it all depends on the evidence presented in court
Last week, following the publication of a National Audit Office report into the Gaffarena property deal, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, in his capacity as an MP, and the Attorney General filed a court case to recoup €3.4 million in land and cash paid to the Gaffarena family for the Old Mint Street property.
Dr Muscat and the AG are seeking to have the deal with Mr Gaffarena nullified on the basis that the Land Department had committed a mistake.
They claim that it committed a technical error when it gave compensation only to the Gaffarenas for the expropriation of part of the property, when it should have been divided between all the owners. Mr Gaffarena only owned half of the property and the half that was expropriated was not defined.
The courts have also been asked to issue a warrant of seizure for funds already paid and a warrant to stop Mr Gaffarena from transferring those properties given to him by the government.
Both requests were temporarily accepted by the court. All such requests are temporarily upheld until the parties battle it out in court.
The lawyers were on the same page when describing the complexity of such cases and the legal complications involved but their opinions differed when asked whether the case could be easily won.
One particular lawyer said winning the case was “highly unlikely”, adding that there were other legal avenues that the government could have resorted to if it wanted to recoup something given to someone by mistake.
He said that the revocation of a contract could not be achieved without lengthy and complicated court proceedings, unless one of the parties cuts it short and accepts what was being asked, saving thousands of euros in legal expenses.
“The annulment of a contract, unless voluntary, which in all probability will not be the case, is totally up to the court,” he added.
Another lawyer questioned whether the judge who will preside over one of the cases – Mr Justice Joseph Micallef – should abstain from hearing the case since he had decided on an injunction that Mr Gaffarena had filed last July in an attempt to stop a family from selling their part of the Valletta palazzo at the centre of a controversial expropriation. Mr Justice Micallef had turned down the request.