A woman who sued her former boyfriend for services rendered when she used to help out at his confectionery store, was awarded €12,500 as compensation by a court.

The woman was a regular face, putting in an ‘active’ presence at the store managed by her former boyfriend, with whom she had been in a relationship for some 10 years, the court was told.

When the two broke up, the woman turned upon her former partner, claiming compensation for all the services rendered at the store on a daily basis for some three years.

When he refused, the two ended up in court, where the woman testified how every day, Monday to Sunday, she would go to the shop at 6.30am waiting for the milkman and the baker to deliver their goods.

Leaving the shop at around 8am to report for duty at another nearby outlet where she held a full-time job, the woman would return to her boyfriend’s business in the afternoon, staying on until closing time at around 10pm.

She said that despite  all her hard work, she never got a cent, adding that she had even taken time off from her regular job to step in for him whenever he went abroad.

She also used to accompany him to the Ta’ Qali market on Mondays and Thursdays when he used to sell fresh fruits and vegetables as a hawker.

Several witnesses, including employees at nearby shops, customers and relatives of the parties, testified how the woman used to regularly help out at the store in an ‘active’ way.

Her former boyfriend testified that she used to be at the store for some three hours daily, but said that half of that time was spent correcting the faulty work of her sister - who was regularly employed in his shop.

Moreover, the man argued in court that he had always footed the bills when they went out as a couple. He said the girlfriend would help herself to foodstuffs and cigarettes from his shop, received free meals from his mother and even used to drive around in his BMW.

This meant that the applicant had been sufficiently reimbursed for her services, he argued.

However, this argument was given short shrift by the court, presided over by Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon, who observed that it was evident that the woman had taken precautions in the eventuality that their relationship ended on the rocks. She had even kept note of the hours when she used to help her former boyfriend when he set up shop as a hawker.

Although her initial claim of 36 hours/week was rejected by the court, declaring that this was "factually impossible" in view of the fact that she held a full-time job, the number of hours was set at 20, as any normal part-time job.

Fixing the hourly rate at €4, the court calculated the total amount owed to the applicant by way of services rendered as €12,500, ordering the respondent to fork out this sum, together with interests and costs.

Defence counsel gave notice of appeal.