The House of Representatives yesterday approved a number of amendments to three pieces of legislation, aimed at improving the civil sector. Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici said the government was improving and speeding up court procedures, especially when it came to settling of debts. He also declared he had a vision where the judiciary managed the courts and set up the budget.
Introducing the Various Laws (Civil Matters) Amendment Bill, Justice Minister Mifsud Bonnici said the Civil Code was being amended so that bank deposits, shares and stocks remain administered by the man and wife separately according to the established practice, if the couple had different accounts in their own name. He said the amendment had long been overdue adding that while the Civil Code upheld the community of acquests it made exception in the administration of these funds.
The same principles on the administration of the community of acquests were being applied to the Stock Exchange. The Minister said the banking sector and the Stock Exchange were in favour of these amendments.
Other amendments referred to matters which related to hypothec over immovables where, the Minister said, progress needed to be registered.
Amendments proposed to the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure were related to warrants with legal procurators being given the right to administer oaths.
The Minister said this also applied to precautionary warrants accompanied by judicial letters. He said that when executive judicial letters were filed, the applicant had 20 days to file an application of full or partial contestation.
The amendments also aimed to avoid cases where prohibitory injunctions were denied as their time limit had been exceeded, without the parties involved being informed. He said prohibitory injunctions had to be dealt with as quickly as possible, to avoid cases where one was given a provisional decree. These cases sometimes remained pending for many years.
The one-month deadline would start from the time when the injunction was issued, and those involved had been accordingly informed.
Naturally, there would be those who would attempt to abuse the system, but these would be dealt with as appropriate.
The 2005 Refugees Act had almost been completely implemented. In light of certain changes, a clause was necessary, stipulating that the Minister was permitted to set up his own corporate body to regulate Open Centres.
The success of official letter did away with the time that one normally wasted over a court procedure, as well as the expenses related when it came to debt collecting. The letter stipulated that no figure could be mentioned, above that of €23,000 when put before the Magistrates Court or the First Hall. A number of official letters were presented each year and steps were being taken to speed up these court procedures.
Opposition spokesman on Justice José Herrera said the opposition agreed with the Bill. However, he felt that on hypothecs and privileges another amendment was necessary because the law currently said that only immovable property could be considered.
Traditionally oaths could be administered only by the staff of the Attorney General's Office, magistrates, commissioners for justice and notaries and later extended to legal procurators. This was working well in practice, but lawyers should not have the same facility.
Referring to the executive official letter, Dr Herrera said that originally he had had reservations especially when the recipient was illiterate. The original competence was of Lm5,000, later extended to Lm10,000. With hindsight he could say that the system was widely used and had helped to keep the number of lawsuits down. But there were still some problems which the current Bill was seeking to solve.
When persons received a cautionary warrant they sometimes decided to hide away their money, which eventually meant that the creditor got the court sentence he wanted but could still not get his hands on the money.
Dr Herrera said he could not understand the question of 60 days as against 20 days. The recipient had 20 days to respond to the cautionary warrant; so how did the total come to 60 days?
Interjecting, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said the 20 days started from the date of the note. If the creditor issued the cautionary warrant but did not manage to have the debtor notified within 60 days there would be problems.
Dr Herrera said what Dr Mifsud Bonnici was saying made sense, but the wording of the Bill was not clear. Official letters could not be served through extreme means, such as after hours or by publication in the Government Gazette.
Official letters involved costs, but when the creditor came to institute the lawsuit the costs he would have incurred for the letter of caution should be deducted from the lawsuit costs. This called for an amendment.
Another issue raised by Dr Herrera was the mandate of prohibitory injunction, which was not cheap. Under the present system the judge used to decide in camera but then still had to hear the parties. But it could amount to nothing if the recipient managed to avoid notification.
Mr Justice Joseph Azzopardi had recently handed down an unprecedented prorogue in a case of demolition of a home. Dr Herrera said that more than a month should be given for notification through the available channels, but not more than a predetermined limit, such as three or four months. Such an amendment would make for greater balance.
On hypothecs, Dr Herrera said Malta did not have a system of mortgages, as in the UK. Hypothecs and privileges emanated from Roman law, adapted through the years, and it had worked well.
The current Bill was denaturalising the meaning of hypothecs. The registration of property made it possible to research ownership. When it came to donations of a certain value this had to be done formally.
Today there were movable properties that were registered too, such as vehicles, yachts, boats, ships and arms. The Bill was proposing to extend privileges from immovable property to include movable property. How would privileges be extended to movable property?
Speaking about third-party interests, Dr Herrera said he agreed with a notary having to research the history of immovable properties, something which hitherto he could be excused from doing by the parties. But if the property was movable and had been bought in bona fede, without knowing that it was the subject of a hypothec, the buyer's interests could be prejudiced.
Interjecting, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that Dr Herrera was so right that the Bill would concentrate on larger movable assets, such as trucks and lorries, which were already subject to registration.
Continuing, Dr Herrera said this was not what the Bill said, because it was simply mentioning movable property. It needed clearer definitions. To date, certain movable properties did not need a formal transfer when they changed owners. It was one thing to amend laws, but quite another to enforce the amendments.
Confessing to digression from the subject-matter, Dr Herrera asked what was the present function of the rule-making body at court. It seemed to have gone beyond its powers, to the point that the judiciary seemed to be amending laws and legislating instead of Parliament. Was the minister aware of this or involved in it? Dr Herrera said he did not agree with this.
Recently the magistrates' courts had handed down a number of sentences sending people, a number of them illiterate, to prison for VAT-related misdemeanours. In the interests of justice, VAT-related fines could not be allowed to keep accumulating to the point where they were impossible to pay.
Concluding, Dr Herrera said the time had probably come to privatise the notification process. This could initially be done on an experimental basis.
Before winding up, Dr Mifsud Bonnici paid tribute to former Attorney General Joseph Borg, who passed away on Sunday, for his good qualities and professionalism.
Turning to the Bill, the minister said he wanted to be sure to create a mechanism which would promote change. He referred to the executive judicial letter where a time limit had to be given to submit an application on contestation. He said that he would consider the suggestion made by the Opposition adding that mechanisms would be created to expedite matters. There were a number of cases which were stuck in court. Executive judicial letters led to an increase in the judicial workload.
The Minister said that one needs to utilise better the use of resources. It was calculated that with the exception of the Family Court, 47 per cent of new cases were solved during the same year when they were instituted. However more instruments had to be given to the courts and the Rulemaking Board was working on this. The members of the Judiciary had to have the right of choice of their own team.
Minister Mifsud Bonnici said one could not embark on this reform overnight. A number of mechanisms were introduced. He trusted the members of the Judiciary. A lot of suggestions made by Legal Procurators were adopted and were successful. Revenue to the government had increased over the years.
He said that he would be considering the role of the Court Bailiff, this being a person who had to be conversant with the law. He said that one needed to delve further into the matter of precautionary warrants.
Concluding, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said a number of amendments which were approved by Parliament needed to come into force in the very near future, adding that at the same time caution had to be exercised. This would attract more international-related work to Maltese courts.
The Bill was unanimously approved.
Earlier, the House gave the first reading to the Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill.