A company contracted to build the Paola primary healthcare hub has failed in its bid for an injunction to stop the authorities from taking over the premises.
“The importance that this hospital starts functioning, exceeds by far the importance of the applicants’ claims,” concluded the court in its decree delivered yesterday.
The request for a warrant of prohibitory injunction was filed on September 18 by Ergon Projects Limited and Ergon Technoline joint venture against the Ministry of Health and Active Ageing, the ministry’s permanent secretary, the Foundation for Medical Services and the Director of Contracts.
The whole issue revolved around a tender that was awarded to the joint venture between Ergon Projects Limited and Technoline Limited to “design and build… the Paola Primary Health Care Southern Regional Hub using environmentally friendly construction materials and products.”
The contract of works was terminated and upon termination “the ministry took effective possession of the premises, namely the Vincent Moran Healthcare Hub located at Paola,” said permanent secretary Joseph Chetcuti, when testifying in the injunction proceedings.
But Ergon Technoline joint venture claimed that the authorities were not to take over the premises and carry out works therein until works carried out by the contractor and expenses incurred in the project were first verified in an independent manner.
For this reason they sought to obtain an injunction, asking the court to stop the authorities from starting to operate the healthcare facility.
'Authorities had already take over possession'
The First Hall, Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Ian Spiteri Bailey, observed that the permanent secretary at the health ministry testified that the authorities had already taken over possession of the Paola premises upon termination of the contract.
Moreover, the medical authorities clearly stated that their aim was for the hub “to start functioning as soon as possible” once works were completed.
The court declared that it could not prohibit something which had already taken place. That line was taken in other cases, such as the case filed by Birdlife Malta, said the judge.
The applicants’ second request was to stop the authorities from carrying out any changes or works at the premises before the value of the works done by the applicants was “independently ascertained.”
The court observed that that request was not supported by the contract signed between the parties nor by the law.
In fact, the contract itself expressly spelt out the manner whereby such value was to be certified.
'Any other comment superfluous' – judge
The contract stated that after notice of termination an engineer appointed by the employer “shall proceed to agree and determine the value of the works, goods and contractor’s documents and any other sums due to the contractor for works executed in accordance with the contract.”
The respondents declared that an engineer was carrying out that verification process.
And once the contract was terminated, the contract itself stated that the employer “may complete the works…”
“Any other comment would likely be superfluous,” remarked the judge.
The court observed that in the current circumstances that were publicly known, regarding the necessity for such a hospital to start functioning, there was no doubt that there would be disproportionate prejudice if the applicants’ request were to be upheld.
“The importance for this hospital to start functioning exceeds by far the importance of the applicants’ claims and the applicants themselves failed to prove otherwise,” concluded the court.