A court yesterday ruled that a precautionary warrant should not be issued to pressurise an alleged debtor into accepting his creditor’s claims against him when these had not been confirmed by the courts.

The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court, following an application filed by Nita Gavin against Health Managers (UK) Ltd.

Ms Gavin told the court that in 2007 the company had issued a warrant of seizure against her. It had seized her car, which was then given for safekeeping to a third party. However, the company had not followed up the warrant within the legal time limit and the courts issued a counter-warrant.

But Ms Gavin said she had been deprived of the use of her car for herself and for her minor child for three months.

She asked the First Hall of the Civil Court to impose a penalty on the company in terms of law.

On its part, the company argued it had wanted to reach a compromise agreement with Ms Gavin.

Mr Justice Zammit McKeon said if the company was correct in its submissions then it ought not to have applied for the issue of a precautionary warrant of seizure against Ms Gavin. It was a legal principle that a warrant is not issued in order to weaken an adversary’s position. The issue of the warrant by the company was aimed at causing Ms Gavin to suffer inconvenience and humiliation.

The court added that precautionary warrants were intended to safeguard a creditor’s claim but they were not intended to be a means whereby a creditor could pile pressure on a debtor so that the latter would accept the creditor’s claims.

The court ordered the company to pay €1,164.69 to Ms Gavin.