|
Matthew Vella
A woman whose property was left structurally damaged by the construction of the Portomaso complex and Hilton hotel in St Julians, has won Lm15,600 in compensation after a court found Spinola Development Company Ltd responsible for the damages incurred.
Joanne Briffa said her house in Spinola Road, St Julians, had suffered considerable damage due to the construction of the hotel and other excavations, resulting in a loss of rental revenue due to the noise and dust generated by the development.
Briffa said she first presented a claim for damages back in 2000 in a letter to Spinola Development.
Technical experts who examined the damage found cracks in walls across the entire house, as well as dislodged stones in one part of the house.
Spinola Development presented evidence showing works had been sanctioned by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, and that the use explosives for blasting had not exceeded noise limits. But the court said no evidence had been presented over the effects of vibrations and movements caused by the explosives.
A technical expert remarked that Briffa’s property had been quite old, and that due to its proximity to the seaside, was unprotected from strong winds, storms, and the erosion caused by sea spray, which contributed to the deterioration of the house. The court said that any damages resulting from the lack of maintenance of the house would have to be deducted, quantifying the sum of Lm1,200 for structural damages caused by the developers.
The court then quantified the alleged loss of rent resulting from the continued development and construction of the hotel between 1996 and 2002. Although the property was being rented for a total of Lm1,920 a year, the court said any compensation for rent over the six years had to be based on an accumulating value, and decreed that compensation should be Lm2,400 for each year (Lm14,400).
One of the technical experts employed by the court expressed the opinion that Briffa was entitled to 50 per cent of the compensation for rent, since the property had not been maintained up to standard. The court however said that had the property been in good condition, it would still not have been rented due to the ongoing construction of the hotel.
|
