Fireworks enthusiast Paul Camilleri manufactured and stored fireworks unlawfully in his home garage in Naxxar.

On March 12, 2008, while Mr Camilleri was working alone in his garage, a huge explosion of five to 10 kilos of explosive substance destroyed his house and garage, as well as two other adjacent properties, including Edward Bugeja’s home.

Two people died in the incident, including Mr Camilleri, who died instantly.

MIB Insurance Brokers (Malta) Ltd on behalf of Lloyds Underwriters reimbursed Edward Bugeja, the owner of No. 7 Hacienda, Ħal Dghejf Street, Naxxar, and sued Mr Camilleri’s widow, Maria Camilleri, and the estate of Paul Camilleri for damages.

Mrs Camilleri and her son renounced the inheritance. The insurance company asked the court to declare Mrs Camilleri responsible for the incident of March 12, 2008, in particular for the damages suffered by Edward Bugeja on the same day; to declare that Bugeja had suffered damages amounting to €43,162, and to condemn her to pay this amount.

In reply, Mrs Camilleri denied responsibility for the illegal act committed by her husband, which was the cause of the damages suffered by the assured.

She said she had not contributed to the incident and was not liable in respect of her share of the community of acquests and paraphernal property.

On October 11, 2011, the First Hall Civil Court liquidated the damages to €40,764 and condemned her to pay this amount. It resulted that after the incident explosive material was found in the two other garages belonging to Mr Camilleri in the same street.

There was no doubt that Mr Camilleri was responsible for the incident. Fireworks should never be manufactured or stored in a residential area. At issue was whether his widow was also responsible. Reference was made to articles 1327-1330 Civil Code.

Article 1327(f) provides: “Any debt or indemnity due as a civil remedy by either spouse where such indemnity is not due as a civil remedy in respect of any offence wilfully committed.”

Mrs Camilleri argued in her defence that the damages were a consequence of a criminal act, in violation of article 28 et seq of Chapter 33. She said that she had not been aware of her husband’s illegal activities and could not be considered an accomplice, as she had not participated in the crime.

In the court’s opinion, the insurance company was seeking a remedy for involuntary damage. Once the damage was not “wilful”, it did not fall under article 1327(f) Civil Code. Accordingly, the community of acquests between spouses Camilleri was responsible and, in subsidium, their paraphernal assets. In addition, the court did not find it credible that his widow Mrs Camilleri did not know what her husband was doing in their garage. She should have suspected, it said, that he was carrying out another activity. He only had one car and did not need three garages.

There was no doubt that Paul Camilleri was responsible for the incident. Fireworks should never be manufactured or stored in a residential area. At issue was whether his widow was also responsible

The court did not believe that she had never entered these garages, especially the garage interconnected with their home.

The fact therefore that she knew that her husband manufactured fireworks in a residential area and had done nothing to stop him rendered her responsible for the damages, stated the court.

It said that the persons responsible for the incident were the defendant Mrs Camilleri as well as the estate of the deceased Paul Camilleri, out of their community of acquests and in subsidium with their paraphernal property.

The damages covered under the policy of insurance amounted to €40,764.

The sum represented by the loss adjusted was not considered to form part of the damages.

Aggrieved by the decision of the First Court, Mrs Camilleri entered an appeal, calling for its revocation. She reiterated that she had not been aware of the illegal acts committed by her husband; that she had not contributed to the incident and that the garnishee order against her should be revoked.

The court pointed out that under article 1327-1330 Civil Code, if the damage caused by the act of her husband was “wilful”, then the wife was not responsible. The Court of Appeal agreed with the First Court that the damage was not the direct consequence of a crime which was voluntary and intentionally committed. Her husband had not intended to cause the explosion, even if from a criminal law point of view he could still be held liable.

In this report the liability was a burden on the community of acquests and in subsidium against the paraphernal assets of the spouses. From a civil law perspective, Mrs Camilleri was an accomplice of her husband.

It resulted that the husband had been in the fireworks business for approximately seven to eight years and it appeared rather unlikely that his wife would not have known that her husband had been manufacturing fireworks for around seven years in their garage.

It was stated that her husband’s garage was virtually a fireworks factory, and in these circumstances surely Mrs Camilleri should have had knowledge of his activities, pointed out the court.

“Secondary participation” was a form of complicity. It enabled the execution of the activity, causing the damage.

In this case, the court maintained that although Mrs Camilleri had not personally assisted in the manufacture of fireworks, she supported her husband and benefited from the extra income which her husband earned from this activity. It resulted further that the court had already found Mrs Camileri to be responsible for the same incident and the court agreed with this decision.

For these reasons, on June 26, 2015, the Court of Appeal gave judgment by dismissing the appeal and by confirming the decision of the First Court.

Mrs Camilleri was condemned to pay all judicial expenses.

Dr Grech Orr is a partner at Ganado Advocates.