St Julian's local council rebuts abuse allegations over St Patrick's Day concessions

The St Julian's local council has come out fighting in their reply to an injunction filed by lawyer and Labour MP Luciano Busuttil, against a decision to grant Philip Gatt and Melchior Vassallo exclusive rights for the St Patrick’s Day celebrations of 17 March.

Busuttil filed for the injunction two days ago in his capacity as a lawyer on behalf of Ryan’s Pub, Tigullio and Saddles Bar.

Traditionally, the bars are the main outlets serving customers celebrating the Irish patron saint, with Irish bars in the area using the day as an occasion to attract customers.



Massive Promotions were granted a licence to play music and sell alcohol during the celebration, while not being an owner of any outlet in the St Julian’s area.

The bars in question were granted a council permit to extend their point-of-sales outside their shop fronts, but without playing music.

 The commercial establishments argued that this decision was “abusive and illegal” and that the council was trying to negotiate on a compromise to allow the two entrepreneurs to organise the sale of beverages throughout the spontaneous St Patrick’s Day celebration in St Julian’s.

St Julian's Local Council rebuts allegations of abuse



In its reply, the mayor and Executive Secretary to the local council argued that the injunction was a ploy by the plaintiffs to unjustly obtain an exclusive right to set up bars and exclude everyone else.

The injunction application was irregular because it attempts to stop the council from issuing permits, which had already been granted, it argued. Furthermore, the plaintiffs had not shown what prejudice they stood to suffer by the already completed action of issuing the permits.

The council had never conceded the exclusive right to organise St Patrick's Day celebrations to Massive Promotions or Philip Gatt. In fact, the reply states, it had granted them permits to set up stalls in front of their establishments, as they had requested.

“In other words, what prejudice can the plaintiffs suffer when they have been granted the permits that they requested, in their entirety?”

The St Julian's local council also vehemently denied the insinuation that the permits had been issued illegally, saying it had been issued in the same manner as for other private events in the area and neighbouring localities, such as concerts and meetings. 
“In any case, this event IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE ONE, so much so that all three of the plaintiffs were granted permission to set up stalls. There were others who were also permitted to set up stalls...it follows, therefore that the plaintiff's' conclusion IS COMPLETELY MISTAKEN and it follows that they have suffered NO PREJUDICE as a result.”

This argument strikes at the essential element of a warrant of prohibitory injunction, by claiming that there was nothing to be inhibited: “the council is not organising any activity, has not contracted anyone to do so and its actions were limited to granting permission to the applicants to set up stands for St Patrtick's Day, together with others and conceded a permit of occasional entertainment.”

The allegation that the council had asked for compensation from Philip Gatt was false and “merely intended to act as an obstacle to the council's operation.” What had really happened, the council said, was that it asked for a €2,000 payment on the application to cover the extensive post-feast cleanup costs which the council has to provide.

The ultimate goal of the injunction was to prevent the council from granting permits to anyone but the plaintiffs, argued the council's lawyer Stefano Filletti. The logical conclusion of the plaintiffs' arguments was that the fact alone that the council grants a permit to a third party for an event on the same day as it did to Massive Promotions was prejudicial, he said.

“Are third parties therefore precluded from applying for a stand on the same day? Are the plaintiffs the only ones who have a right to apply for a stand on St Patrick's Day to the exclusion of everyone else such that if anyone else applies they contend that they are suffering prejudice and damages?”