A judge presiding over injunction proceedings against allegedly ‘illegal’ works on a new restaurant beneath the old University Campus in Merchants' Street, Valletta, ordered an onsite visit on Thursday afternoon.
That order was issued by Mr Justice Grazio Mercieca at the end of an animated hearing on Thursday morning when lawyers for the university and the individual undertaking works at the new restaurant crossed swords over the controversial project.
The university resorted to legal action and obtained a provisional injunction blocking the works, after a judicial protest filed against Charles Foca, the man responsible for the development, proved futile.
The university says it had not been consulted in any way and had missed out on the chance to file an objection against the proposed eatery, specialising in Asian and Mediterranean cuisine.
The owner of the premises is the Lands Authority which, as administrator of government property, had informed the Planning Authority that it did not approve the proposed development.
In his reply to the injunction application, Foca argued that he was handling the works on behalf of Mark Portelli, who held the premises under title of lease.
Lawyer Carlos Bugeja, appearing for the university, said that the permit had been issued in Foca’s name.
He said the works involved two properties, one of which had obtained a licence which Bugeja claimed was “irregular,” and another which had no permit.
Yet the restaurant project was still going ahead, posing a “great hazard” not only to the historic building lying directly above it but also to all the academics, students and staff frequenting the old campus, he said.
At the start of the hearing, Foca’s lawyer, Timothy Bartolo, declared that there would be no gas cylinders inside the new restaurant since all appliances were electric.
But the university's lawyer sought to poke holes in that statement.
Reading from documents submitted for planning purposes, Bugeja pointed out that Foca had declared that the restaurant was to make use of fossil fuel, specifically gas.
The maximum electricity demand was to be met by means of a single-phase meter which would surely not support a fully electrically operated system.
And with a projected annual consumption of 1000 units of electricity, Foca’s claim was hardly “credible,” argued Bugeja.
The university was also concerned about the lack of proper ventilation in the restaurant below, with carbon monoxide fumes likely to flow from one room to another with no outer-looking window.
“One spark is all it would take,” argued Bugeja.
Those arguments were promptly described by Foca’s lawyer as painting an “apocalyptic” scenario based on “fear” rather than legal grounds to justify the injunction.
There must be a right to safeguard and an irremediable prejudice to be suffered if that injunction were to be confirmed, said Bartolo.
The university was neither the owner, nor the lessee.
Moreover “I can today declare that in this place there will not be one gas cylinder,” insisted Foca’s lawyer, supporting his claim with photos filed along with his written reply.
He said the restaurant had gone through all the regular stages of planning and works were carried out under the constant supervision of heritage authorities.
The university did not object, not even to the commencement notice of works, he observed.
But the opponent’s lawyer immediately rebutted that the first application had gone through because the university was not duly notified.
“The second application, the one we knew about, was withheld because we objected.”
Faced with those arguments, the court declared that it would rather hold an onsite visit to the Valletta premises.
The case continues.