Court allows Mario Philip Azzopardi to remove director after artistic dispute

A theatre director's bid to stop Mario Philip Azzopardi from removing him as director of Stagun Teatru Malti has failed after a court turned down his request for a warrant for prohibitory injunction.

Sean Buhagiar had directed the Maltese satirical play Habbilni Ha Nirbah, but had relinquished his post last Feburary after clashing with Azzopardi, during the play's production week.

Azzopardi and Buhagiar had set up Stagun Teatru Malti as a joint venture in 2014 with the stated aim of "uniting their experiences, contacts and intellectual capabilities in the arts and cultural sector" and with Azzopardi as the company's majority shareholder.

Artistic differences led to the two falling out, after which Buhagiar claimed that his access to company documentation and accounting records had been illegally blocked, while lawyers on both sides had been exploring the possibility of Buhagiar selling his shareholding to Azzopardi. This made it impossible for him to establish the value of his shares.

On April 20, Azzopardi had summoned a meeting to discuss Buhagiar's removal from his directorial role. Buhagiar had filed an injunction to stop this from taking place.

Azzopardi had told the court that after several arguments, Buhagiar had abandoned the production of Habbilni Ha Nirbah the day before the play's opening and had threatened to halt the production, despite knowing that all tickets had been sold.

Madam Justice Miriam Hayman held that, as the majority shareholder, Azzopardi did have a legal right to remove an individual from the post of director without giving reasons.

The plaintiff had other remedies with which he could have contested his dismissal, held the court, ruling the injunction unnecessary.

The injunction, which had been upheld on a preliminary basis, was lifted by the court.

In a statement, Buhagiar said the decision of the court to dismiss the prohibitory injunction preventing the holding of a meeting of the shareholers was taken on the grounds that he had other remedies available at law to contest the move towards the removal.

“I procured the issue of the precautionary warrant of prohibitory injunction given the limited options available to me at the time, having received notice of a meeting convened specifically for this purpose. I had already offered to exit the company at fair value since I no longer share Mr Azzopardi’s artistic vision and work ethic but disparity of views is delaying agreement.

“Meanwhile steps were taken to deny my access to information pertaining to the company – including information related to public funds of which the company is a beneficiary – and this triggered a number of concerns,” Buhagiar said.

He also denied that he threatened to stop the production. “When I left, I left for the good of the production, and not to stop it. I had said publicly that I wished the best of luck to the actors and the writer. In fact it was Mr Azzopardi who threatened to stop the production if I do not return.

“When I was told that Mr Azzopardi refused my offer to continue my work without his interference, I only asked for my previously agreed payment to be guaranteed in writing if my unfinished work was to be used. If this was perceived as a threat, then it means that someone did not want to pay me. I could have stopped it if I wanted to, but I would have never done that to the actors.”