An elderly man who sued the woman he had met on a dance floor back in 2002 for thousands in cash deposited in her accounts for safekeeping has failed to prove his claims in court. 

The now-86-year-old man filed civil proceedings in 2017 against the woman, now aged 82, whom he had met at a Sliema hotel where the two had turned up for some live band music and entertainment. 

The two hit it off on the dance floor and soon became regular dancing partners and more than just friends.

As their relationship matured, so did the man’s trust in his partner, confiding in her about the closely-guarded cash he habitually carried about with him for fear of leaving it at home. 

He explained that did not wish to deposit the money at the bank so as to keep his balance below the €9,000 threshold without forfeiting his free medication allowances.

Nor did he wish to leave his cash savings unguarded at home, especially after a fire had once broken out at his residence which, on another occasion, had allegedly been targeted by thieves.

The woman accepted his request and went along with him to the bank to effect the first deposit in her account, some Lm7,000 with interest thereon to be retained by the account holder.

Between 2002 and 2008, the couple visited the same bank branch on a number of occasions, depositing sums of money into the woman’s personal account.

But when their relationship turned sour, the man got to know through a bank official that considerable amounts had been withdrawn from that account under a power of attorney.

The man claimed that he had been duped into signing a document in favour of a relative of his partner.

The couple drifted apart and when their relationship came to an end in 2015, he claimed that the woman was refusing to give him back his money which, he said, totalled €73,000, always coming up with some excuse.

He had also handed her three boxes of gold items for safekeeping and she was also refusing to return those, the applicant claimed, seeking recourse before the civil courts. 

The woman rebutted his allegations, stating that the couple had granted each other mutual powers of attorney under express consent to facilitate banking transactions “as the need arose”.

Moreover, she had given the applicant all his money back, said the respondent, explaining that out of the total sum deposited in her account, namely Lm10,000 (€26,000), she had first handed back €25,000 and a further €1,300 “to rid herself of the pending problem”.

But she next received a letter from her former partner’s lawyer demanding a further €2,300, which she again effected by bank draft to have some form of receipt. 

There was also disagreement about monthly payments of Lm150, subsequently reduced to Lm100, which the woman had allegedly asked the applicant to deposit into her account, and which were effected by the couple together at the bank. 

As for the gold items, she insisted that all she had ever received from the applicant were two items of jewellery as gifts.

When delivering judgment, the First Hall, Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff, observed that between 2005 and 2016 there had been several withdrawals from the applicant’s savings account, including a particular “substantial” one.

Yet, when all was considered, the applicant failed to provide the court with a clear picture as to which deposits were being contested and which had not been done by the applicant himself or under his authorisation, said the judge.

Nor did he explain how the withdrawals had persisted even after the power of attorney was revoked in 2016, said the court.

It was not sufficient to claim that the woman’s own bank deposits flourished substantially throughout the time of her relationship with the applicant, the court said, observing that there was no convincing evidence by the woman as to the source of those funds.

She sought to justify those amounts by claiming that she benefitted through her husband’s inheritance, a rented property and a bank refund. Besides, she had been ‘diligent’ with her savings, the widow said.

But figures did not seem to tally and the court was left unconvinced that the augmented deposits in the respondent’s name were attributable to her “diligence”.

However, in the absence of clear and unequivocal proof by the applicant, his claims could not be upheld, the court concluded.