The union of engineers said it is determined to continue to strive to safeguard the rights of the professional community, following a court decision revoking an injunction granted in its favour.

In a statement issued in the wake of a court decision revoking an injunction that had been povisionally upheld against the Engineering Profession Board, the Malta Association of Professional Engineers (MAPE) claimed that “justice delayed [is] justice denied”.

The union has mounted a legal battle to safeguard the engineering profession, persistently calling upon the board and its chairman for information and consultation regarding proposed amendments to the law governing the profession, as well as the approval of MCAST courses, which the union claims are far from equivalent to those run at university level. 

Among those courses is the pre-warrant qualification course, a so-called “bridging” course intended to enable past MCAST engineering graduates attain eligibility to apply for the relative warrant.

Repeated calls by the union for consultation with the board on such matters, have allegedly been ignored, prompting MAPE to seek recourse before the courts, obtaining a provisional injunction last month, thereby blocking approval of the proposed courses by the board. 

The union insisted that such information and consultation with all stakeholders was a mandatory requirement under the proportionality test directive which the board and its chairman were persistently violating.

Following a four-hour marathon session of testimonies and lengthy arguments in court, the First Hall, Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Toni Abela, delivered judgment, lifting the injunction on various grounds, including the fact that third party interests, namely MCAST, were not represented in the suit.

That decision was described as “surprising, to say the least,” by the union which claimed further that the judgment not only “evaded” the cardinal issue concerning the alleged breach of the proportionality test directive, but also set a “dangerous” precedent. 

While revoking the injunction to safeguard third party interests, the court had “ignored” the prejudice likely created against the engineering profession, namely “at least a 2,000 strong body” as a whole, it said.