Judgment in Adrian Delia’s Vitals court case is expected in January as proceedings reached the final leg on Tuesday, with one side stressing that the hospitals’ concession was tainted by corruption and the other side insisting that the court case was defective in more ways than one. 

“We gave them property worth billions, not millions, and they gave us nothing in return,” stressed Delia’s lawyer, Edward de Bono, when wrapping up final submissions in a hearing that was mainly characterised by legal arguments, interrupted by the occasional verbal spat. 

“This contract is the fruit of corruption,” said de Bono, with reference to the controversial 2015 privatisation deal through which the Gozo General Hospital, St Luke’s Hospital and Karin Grech Hospital were taken over by Vitals Global Healthcare. 

The concession was subsequently taken over by Steward in 2018. 

Delia, as former Opposition Leader, took the authorities to court, arguing that the original concessionaire and its successor had failed to fulfil their contractual obligations and since determining milestones had been missed, the hospitals were to be “given back to the people”.

Since then, the Auditor General had issued a report confirming that the concession appeared to be tainted by corruption.

Steward itself, in separate proceedings against the Medical Associates of Northern Virginia Inc. Profit Sharing Plan (MANV,) in a bid to block the enforcement of a UK judgment in favour of MANV, had described the hospitals’ concession as “fraudulent”.

That foreign judgment had ordered Steward to pay US$6.47 million as part of a settlement agreement whereby MANV claimed the money for its involvement in the acquisition of the Maltese hospitals concession. 

In February, Steward formally ceded its case, dropping its objections to the UK court ruling. 

'Vitals knew it would get contract'

On Tuesday, Delia’s lawyer drove home the point that prior to the request for proposals, Vitals knew that the “contract was for them”.

When the persons tasked with carrying out due diligence checks on the proposed bidders were summoned to testify in Delia’s court case, they all shrugged responsibility, each one shifting blame onto the other, said de Bono.

“It was all agreed beforehand.”

And it was only the former Opposition Leader, out of all MPs, who filed this case to protect the people’s rights.

“Where is [Attorney General] Victoria Buttigieg? Who stopped them from protecting this property and recovering it for the Maltese people,” asked the lawyer, highlighting the fact that Vitals had failed to fulfil their obligations and, therefore, could not transfer the concession to Steward. 

The concession was tainted with corruption, flagged also by the Auditor General, he said.

“What’s the logical consequence? Should this contract continue as though nothing happened? We gave them that property to do something. Once they failed so badly in their obligations, can we go ahead?”

'Fraud corrupts'

“Fraud corrupts,” argued de Bono, adding that the contract was to be annulled because of fraud, the overriding factor. 

But that factor did not feature anywhere in Delia’s original claims, countered the respondents’ lawyers, as one by one sought to poke holes in the applicant’s arguments.

The case stemmed from the claim that the concessionaires had failed in their obligations and had not reached completion milestones. 

That claim could not lead to rescission of the contract, argued State Advocate Chris Soler, stressing that the judge was to rigorously stick to the terms of the dispute and the applicant’s claims as spelt out in his original application. 

The privatisation was affected in terms of law.

Delia’s action was also procedurally defective because it ought to have been instituted against the contracting authority, namely the Health Ministry’s permanent secretary, rather than the Prime Minister and the Attorney General. 

Nowhere did Delia make reference to corruption in his original application, but non-completion of milestones which came after the contract, intervened lawyer Stefano Filletti, representing the Lands Authority. 

Delia had not attacked the contract by arguing that it had not been concluded in terms of law, namely by Parliamentary resolution, or public tender or by operation of law. 

What started off as an action based on non-fulfilment of contractual obligations had gradually morphed into one based on alleged fraud.

Moreover, the Lands Authority, formerly the Lands Commissioner, had no place in the lawsuit since all rights and obligations of that authority had been transferred to the Malta Industrial Parks (now INDIS) by virtue of two legal notices published before the Vitals concession, went on Filletti. 

'Inconceivable for third party to attack concession'

In fact, the land in question could not revert back to Lands because it now fell under the portfolio of INDIS, stepped in lawyer John Bonello, representing that entity in the proceedings. 

Moreover, it was inconceivable for a third party, having no juridical interest, to attack the concession. 

“Anyway you look at it, this action cannot succeed,” argued Bonello.

The case was marked by “mismatch” in more ways than one, intervened Steward’s lawyer, Joseph Camilleri.

The main claim about the alleged breach of contractual obligations did not match the remedy requested and nowhere had the applicant claimed that the contract was fraudulent or illegal.

There was a mismatch in the way the case started and how it eventually worked out. 

“Where does that bring us in the end? The claims cannot be upheld,” concluded Camilleri.

At the end of the lengthy hearing, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale, adjourned the case for judgment in January.