A magistrate presiding over a libel suit filed by Adrian Delia against Lovin Malta has turned down a request for recusal by the media outlet, which claimed that the court had already expressed itself on the subject of chats from Yorgen Fenech’s phone.

In August, the website carried a story titled, 'Yorgen Fenech claimed Adrian Delia messaged him during 17 Black debate,' and within 24 hours of that publication, the former opposition leader filed a defamation suit against Lovin Malta and its editor Julian Bonnici.

Citing “well-informed sources” the story referred to Whatsapp messages where Fenech claimed that Delia had messaged him during a parliamentary debate on November 12, 2018.

That debate had stemmed from an urgent motion pushed by the former opposition leader himself after the business tycoon had been outed as the owner of secret Dubai-based company 17 Black. 

Delia denied those allegations as “absolutely not true”, insisting that Lovin Malta's story gave a false impression that was simply intended to tarnish his reputation, integrity and honour. 

When the case was called on Thursday, the court, presided over by magistrate Rachel Montebello, made reference to a request put forward by Lovin Malta lawyer Andrew Borg Cardona in a written reply to Delia’s libel claims. 

This court had already expressed itself “in a very clear manner” on the matter in respect of other journalists, not Lovin Malta, said Borg Cardona, adding that the court as presided appeared to have “a certain feeling about these messages”.

However, that view did not seem to be shared by Delia’s lawyer, Vincent Galea.

According to what had been reported by the media, the court had banned publication of such messages on the ground of public order, the lawyer said, questioning whether that amounted to expressing an opinion about the contents of those texts. 

Having heard the lawyers’ arguments the court declared that, on the basis of the allegations forming the subject matter of this libel, there were no grounds for recusal.

Moreover, any opinion the court might have expressed in separate proceedings was not relevant to this case, Magistrate Montebello declared.

Moving on to the next preliminary issue the court sounded both lawyers on the possibility of resolving the claims through mediation. 

Although Lovin Malta were always open to that possibility, the pleas raised by the respondents “spoke for themselves,” said Borg Cardona, explaining further that the publication concerned what third parties had said about Delia.

Since the news portal must have seen the alleged texts, they “might pass them on to us”, countered Delia’s lawyer.

“Then perhaps there would be scope for mediation,” Galea added.

In light of those submissions, the court deferred the case to January for Delia, who was not present at the hearing, to put forward his evidence. 

Delia’s lawyer informed the court that the person to be summoned to testify first would be Bonnici.

The case continues.