A director and a company were held jointly responsible and ordered to pay over €235,000 in damages to a woman who had to seek alternative accommodation when her St Julian’s home was demolished and replaced with an apartment block. 

The case dated back to March 2007 when Dorothy Lentini first filed a civil lawsuit against AS and B Limited claiming that the company, or third parties engaged thereby, had “arbitrarily” demolished the property on George Borg Olivier Street, which was her home. 

The property had originally been leased to her mother who had passed away mere months before. 

The applicant sued both the company and its director, Anthony Sammut, claiming that they had breached the warranty of peaceful possession in her regard and also caused her damages. 

She requested the First Hall, Civil Court to order the defendants to restore the tenement to its former state and layout, return her possession and order them to pay damages. 

The defendants rebutted those claims, arguing that the property had collapsed in totally fortuitous circumstances. 

Besides, the applicant held no title, factual or legal, over the property and could not have been molested in her possession.

The owner had no juridical relationship with the applicant, had never accepted her rent payments and, therefore, she was not entitled to damages. 

Moreover, the director had no title over the property in question so could not answer the applicant’s claims. 

In their counter-claim, the defendants argued further that the woman’s action and the prohibitory injunction and precautionary garnishee in their regard were abusive, causing them substantial damages. 

In 2017, the First Hall, Civil Court turned down the woman’s request for the property to be rebuilt in its former layout and returned to her, but upheld her claim for damages. 

That court ordered the company to pay the applicant €235,679, while declaring that the director was not personally responsible. 

That judgment was appealed by the company, triggering a cross-appeal by Lentini. 

However, in spite of being notified about the date of the first hearing, the company failed to deposit the sum needed to guarantee the relative legal expenses in terms of law, and its appeal was thus deemed to have been “abandoned”.

The cross-appeal stood, with the applicant requesting the court to declare the company director also personally liable and uphold her claim for damages also in his regard. 

When delivering the final judgment, the Court of Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Justices Joseph R. Micallef and Tonio Mallia, observed that although in general a director is considered to be a representative of the company, under certain particular circumstances he too could be held liable for damages caused through his own acts. 

The company filed no reply nor made submissions in court. 

However, they had originally denied responsibility for damages. 

The first court should have clarified whether the applicant’s claim applied to both the company and its director or either of them. 

The first court had concluded that ownership of the property was vested in the company alone. 

However, the Court of Appeal deemed that the appellant’s argument, that the director should also have been held responsible, as well-founded. 

The distinct juridical personality of a company does not “always and automatically” exonerate its directors from responsibility for damages.

That principle was well established through case-law, observed the judges. 

Court records clearly showed that Sammut was aware of the damage being caused to Lentini’s home.

Her architect had drawn up three reports, pointing out that damage and yet, the director did nothing to avoid or reduce the damage caused.

Moreover, he was in charge of the project undertaken by the company.

Therefore, he had the power and, consequently, the duty, to make sure that the works did not pose danger to the tenant and her residence. 

Yet he “blatantly failed in that duty”, observed the court.

In light of such considerations, the applicant was right. 

The director was also responsible and had to answer jointly with the company for the damages awarded to the appellant, together with costs, concluded the court, confirming the amount fixed by the first court. 

Lawyer Mario de Marco assisted plaintiff Lentini.