Perjury trouble for woman who tried to fight eviction

A woman who requested the courts to nullify a contract of debt signed by her husband, is being investigated for perjury after caught lying under oath when she denied having authorised her husband to act on her behalf – knowing that she had indeed given him power of attorney.

A contract dated 15 October 2009 read that Peter Agius owed Anthony Camilleri and his wife Karmena the sum of €79,613 plus 8% interest. The contract also included an apartment in Triq Gafa, Mosta, as a general hypothec.

In 2010, following a court-ordered sale by auction, the apartment became the property of the Camilleris.

A year later, the wife of Peter Agius, Doris, filed a civil suit requesting that the court nullifies the contract and revoke the sale by auction of their Mosta residence, claiming that she, as Agius’s spouse, was not aware of the existence of the contract.

Agius said that when she received letters relating to the sale by auction she had decided not to get involved in the case. But in the summer of 2012, a court marshal knocked on her door and served her an eviction order. Allegedly, it was when Agius informed her husband about the eviction order that she learnt about the contract of debt.

On their part, the Camilleris argued that Doris had given her husband power of attorney, which read that he “could act on my behalf without the need of me being present for the dealing”.

Under oath, Agius told the court that she had never given her husband any authorization to sign anything on her behalf. It was only when the court showed the power of attorney to Agius that she admitted having signed the document.

Additionally, receipts issued to Peter Agius for past payments showed that not only was his wife aware of the situation, but that she had also authorised the issuing of the said payments.

Mr Justice Silvio Meli noted that Agius had lied under oath when she denied having authorised her husband to act on her behalf, knowing she had indeed given him a power of attorney. The court ruled that the acts of the case be sent to the Commissioner of Police to investigate if there was enough evidence to accuse Doris Agius of perjury, after she was caught giving false evidence in court.

The judge threw out the plaintiff’s application and ordered her to pay all court fees relating to the case.