Former President’s PRO breach of contract claim against PM dismissed

Former aide to former President George Abela, Marica Mizzi has lost a lawsuit that she had filed against the Prime Minister, alleging non-payment of terminal benefits.

Between 2009 and 2014, Mizzi had been employed as a public relations officer to then President George Abela on his request.

But when Abela's term came to an end, so did Mizzi's employment. Citing a clause in her contract stating that she was entitled to an undisclosed sum of money “in the exceptional event that the employment is terminated,” the TV presenter took the Prime Minister and his Principal Permanent Secretary, Mario Cutajar, to court when this sum was not paid out.

Mizzi had alleged that at the end of Abela's presidency, she had been corresponding with the Office of the Prime Minister about the issue and had been variously told that the precise amount was being calculated or that she would be receiving her dues.

Three months later, in June 2014, she had filed a judicial letter, calling on Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and Mario Cutajar, his Principal Permanent Secretary, to pay her terminal benefits, after she was informed by the OPM that no monies were due to her and that her interpretation of the clause was incorrect.

Deciding on the issue, judge Lawrence Mintoff noted that the applicable dispositions of the civil code mirrored long-standing legal doctrine of cum in verbis nulla ambiguitas est, non est movenda voluntatis quaestio, which essentially means that if a contractual clause is clear, the court cannot interpret it or try to deduce the motive behind it – unless the wording is clearly not expressing the wishes of all the parties.

The judge pointed out that the contract used the terms “terminate” in instances where the contract would come to a premature end, and “expire” to refer to the point in time when the contract would have run its course.

The clause speaking of “in the event of termination of contract due to a change of the President” did not apply because her contract had not been terminated because of the change in President, but simply because of the expiration of his term of office.

A change in President was not an exceptional event, the court held, because it is entirely predictable, happening every five years as laid down in the Constitution. Her contract was a standard PAHRO one, “therefore it is definitely not the case that clause 4.5 of her contract should be given an extensive interpretation beyond that which is clearly stipulated.” Neither was there evidence to show that the plaintiff had been treated differently from others in the same circumstances, the court held.

Mizzi's claim was dismissed with the court also ordering her to bear the costs of the case.