Data & Surveys
Gender gap 'highest ever' in A-level exams since 2004
Company blocks transfer of licence to competitor
The applicant must prove prima facie that it has a right to protect and that if it is not protected, it will suffer a prejudice. These two elements must both exist
30 September 2016, 8:06am
In an application Labomed Ltd explained to the court that it had been in discussions with Catherine Mifsud, since January 2016 to receive the transfer of a licence of a pharmacy in Mosta. These discussions continued into July when the company and Mifsud signed a preliminary agreement, where she bound herself to transfer the licence for a price. The agreement also mentioned that the company would purchase the stock and equipment at the pharmacy.
The payment had to be effected when the deed was drawn up by the notary and signed by the parties. However, after this preliminary agreement Mifsud sent an sms that she was no longer interested in selling to the company. Mifsud had entered into another agreement with the company’s competitor, Brown’s Pharma Limited, which would purchase the licence at a better price. This was on condition that the Superintendent of Public Health would accept that the transfer of the licence takes place. In fact the application was submitted on 2 August, 2016. Labomed Ltd informed the Court that further legal action was being taken against Mifsud, but it needed to block the transfer first.
The Department of Public Health disagreed that the process to transfer the licence should be halted and argued that in the process the applicant company was not a party. The department further pleaded that the company does not have any legal right to protect and that the department has a legal obligation to process such applications.
Mr Justice Meli explained that the procedure to issue a warrant of prohibitory injunction is laid down in Article 873 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure. As laid down in Sammut v Sammut, decided on 5 June, 2003, the applicant must prove prima facie that it has a right to protect and that if it is not protected, it will suffer a prejudice. These two elements must both exist. From the Court’s point of view it must be objective and also give a strict interpretation to what is asked for, since the warrant of prohibitory injunction is of an exceptional nature. The Court must not enter into the merits of the case, in that if the warrant is accepted, it should not reflect the outcome of the lawsuit.
In this particular case, the Court pointed out that there was a preliminary agreement between the applicant company and Mifsud, but it seems that Mifsud negotiated the same licence with another company. If the licence is in fact transferred then Labomed would suffer a prejudice and such prejudice is real, which permits protection by the courts.
The Court then moved to accept that the mandate be issued permanently.
Malcolm Mifsud, Partner, Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates
Malcolm Mifsud is a partner at Mifsud & Associates.
One-third of Maltese do not browse online
Lloyd’s of London CEO Inga Beale rules out Malta...
Court & Police
Updated | Suspected drug trafficker arrested in Dr...
Data & Surveys
Gender gap 'highest ever' in A-level exams since 2...
Court & Police
Fire breaks out in St Paul's Bay apartment, Briton...
[WATCH] President does not exclude return to politics after her term is up
Tenant is legally bound to take care of his premises as though it were his own
Maghtab to host 22,000 solar panels
Fenech Adami and Tonio Fenech on list of Panama Papers committee invitees
Schengen border controls reintroduced as security measure for EU summit
Latest Business News
follow us on facebook