In civil proceedings, it is necessary for a person to show that they have a valid legal interest in the case filed. Such interest must be direct, personal and legitimate, while subsisting from the beginning until the end.
On the other hand, the defendant may argue that they have no interest in the case and are not the legitimate person to be defending the case.
A joinder (kjamat in kawża) is not an original party to the suit, but is one that is later ordered by the court to join the proceedings.
Old jurisprudence suggests that the joinder of a third party in a lawsuit is entertained only in limited circumstances such as when the identity of a party is unknown to the plaintiff prior to filing the lawsuit.
Along the years, such restrictions became more lenient, especially with the introduction of the power of court to order or permit amendments of written pleadings made by either of the parties to the suit. Such powers were introduced into our law by article 175 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.
This provision provides for the possibility of alterations to a lawsuit as long as such changes are made prior to the delivery of judgment and given that such alterations do not affect the merits of the ongoing case proceedings. The possibility of an addition or removal of a party in a suit, as well as the possibility of correcting either of the parties’ names, introduced a significant change to cases filed with such errors. Such introduction allows for more practicality in ongoing cases and their eventual judgments, with the much-desired effect of avoiding identical or multiple lawsuits being filed based on the same merits.
The law also provides the possibility of an intervention by any person who shows to the satisfaction of the court that he is interested in any suit already pending between other parties.
Why would anyone voluntarily opt to be admitted into an ongoing lawsuit? For example, if someone has a legitimate interest in the outcome of a particular case, even though that party is not included as a plaintiff or defendant, that party may want to get involved in the case in order to be heard by the court, in light of the facts that the final judgment might affect his legal position too.
The possibility of an addition or removal of a party in a suit, as well as the possibility of correcting either of the parties’ names, introduced a significant change to cases filed with such errors
The intervenor is not to be mixed with the joinder (kjamat) – a joinder becomes an added defendant to a lawsuit and participates in the same manner as would the original defendant. On the other hand, should an intervention occur, the intervenor may not challenge what happened in the lawsuit before his admission into suit. Indeed, an intervener must accept the state of the judicial proceedings as they are at the time of intervention.
Nevertheless, the institute of the joinder ensures that all interested persons may be included in a lawsuit as parties in the suit. Such an institute thus provides the third party with the opportunity to adequately protect their interests after being served with the application. Furthermore, it allows the joinder to be considered as a defendant with the same rights as an original defendant in the suit, including the right of filing any written pleadings, submitting any pleas and evidence.
For the sake of practicality and to avoid forcing a plaintiff to initiate fresh proceedings against a third party based on identical acts and facts, the courts have by time loosened such restrictions and further established that the joinder of third parties in a lawsuit should always be allowed in cases which would otherwise risk leading to similar or identical proceedings on the same merits. In turn, this also limits the possibility of duplication and conflicting judgments.
The First Hall, Civil Court delved into the above in a similar case filed before it, in the names: ‘Linda Theresa Isabel Grima v Daren Micallef and Merchant Shipping Directorate’ (129/2021 GM). The plaintiff, Grima, filed a lawsuit against two defendants; namely Micallef, who she claimed had her yacht illicitly transferred into his name using a falsified signature and against a second defendant, the Merchant Shipping Directorate.
At this stage of the proceedings, the court has not yet delved into the merits of the case, however it tackled the plea raised by the Merchant Shipping Directorate, whereby it claimed that the plaintiff’s application was null since it (the Merchant Shipping Directorate) is not vested with the juridical personality to counter this suit. The Merchant Shipping Directorate indicated that the authority for transport in Malta should have been the one defending the case instead of it. In light of this, the plaintiff demanded that the authority for transport in Malta be admitted into suit as a joinder – such request was challenged by the Merchant Shipping Directorate.
In challenging this request, the directorate argued that the institute of the joinder should not be used as an eraser to delete the plaintiff’s mistake in a lawsuit, and that it would be giving the plaintiff the right to fix the error only after it was brought to her attention by the same defendant in his pleadings. The court disagreed with this argument.
Following this and by virtue of a decree delivered on July 15, the court declared that the case as filed was not a stillborn, but rather suffered from a disability which could be operated on. In its decree, the court made reference to article 175(1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, which specifically allows for the addition and substitution of a party in a suit, in this case leading to the fixing of the error, and the addition of the authority for transport in Malta as a defendant to the suit.
It is now the plaintiff’s responsibility to notify the authority with the acts of the case which, in turn, has the right to file a reply and defend its position based on the merits of the case.
The case continues in September.
Rebecca Mercieca is an associate at Azzopardi, Borg and Associates Advocates.