Updated 3.45pm with Spiteri application

A court judgment related to the construction site collapse that killed Miriam Pace has sparked confusion and disagreement over its interpretation.

Lawyers representing contractor Ludwig Dimech and builder Nicholas Spiteri have now filed court applications asking the court to correct any words or parts of the December 6 judgement that are unclear – as an excavator got to work at the site on Monday morning.

The court request, filed on Monday, seeks to clear up confusion surrounding a court decision related to construction works at the Ħamrun site where the Pace family home collapsed, as well as a neighbouring site.

That decision was based on an application filed by Dimech and Spiteri, who sought to freeze development works at the neighbouring site until the criminal case is concluded.

Dimech and Spiteri face charges of involuntary homicide in relation to the March 2020 collapse that killed Pace. 

In its decision last week, the court presided by judge Toni Abela concluded that Dimech’s rights had been breached when a separate court allowed property development firm MCZMC Developers Ltd to continue works at the neighbouring site.

It then went to order that the original court decree’s effects be “limited to the property of MCZMC Developers Ltd but not remain in force” for the site where the Pace family home and another garage stood.

The excavator at work on Monday.

The Criminal Court decree had ordered the release of the site.

Lawyers represented MCZMC Developers argue this means their site has been released for works to proceed. Lawyers representing Dimech and Spiteri interpret it as meaning the opposite.

When Times of Malta visited the site on Monday morning, two men appeared to be inspecting the area alongside an excavator. They asked for photos to be deleted after spotting a Times of Malta photographer. 

One hour later, the excavator was seen removing soil and rubble from the site. 

As works began, Dimech and Spiteri's lawyers quickly filed court applications. In their applications, they said they believe the court wanted to order that the decree issued by the Criminal Court was to remain in force in respect of the victims but to be revoked in respect of the company.

The constitutional court evidently wanted to mean one thing, they argued, but because of the way the operative part was worded and the considerations immediately preceding that part, the court was being understood differently.

They therefore asked Mr Justice Abela to effect the necessary corrections to ensure the judgment would reflect what the court intended to say.

Lawyers Michael Sciriha, Roberto Montalto and Roberto Spiteri signed the application for Dimech. Lawyers Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri filed the application on Spiteri's behalf.