President Emeritus George Abela’s former press officer has won a legal dispute over unpaid terminal benefits when her employment on a person of trust basis was terminated at the end of the presidency in 2014.

Marica Mizzi had sued former prime minister Joseph Muscat and his principal permanent secretary Mario Cutajar over the unpaid terminal benefits arguing that her contract provided for such compensation in case of termination on the grounds of a change in presidency.

Mizzi had been engaged in April 2009 as communications coordinator on a definite one-year contract that was renewed annually up to 2014.

According to Mizzi that contract provided that staff members who, like herself, had not joined the president's secretariat from the civil service were entitled to six months’ salary and other benefits upon termination.

Her claim was rejected at first instance, triggering an appeal.

When delivering judgment on Wednesday, the Court of Appeal observed that the dispute pivoted upon the interpretation of a particular clause in the employment contract.

While Mizzi argued that that clause had an effect when the presidency came to an end, the respondents countered that the clause was only applicable in exceptional circumstances and not when her contract reached a “natural” end with the change in presidency.

The court, presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti together with Mr Justices Joseph R Micallef and Tonio Mallia, leaned in favour of the appellant’s argument, observing that the clause would have been open to a different interpretation had the term “change” been qualified as “premature” or “untimely.”

That would have eliminated all doubt as to its interpretation.

Failing such qualification, the term “change of presidency” encompassed the natural end of the term of that Office in line with the Constitution.

Such a clause was intended to ensure that the party engaged with the public service would not suddenly end up jobless and deprived of any income until acquiring alternative employment.

This was even more valid when the party concerned was not formerly a public officer but was engaged as a person of trust.

The contract had been modelled on a template agreement normally used by PAHRO (Public Administration Human Resources Office) in other sectors within the public service.

The clause had been included although this was a definite contract of employment.

When analyzing the evidence, the court lent weight to the testimony of the former President himself who, as the other party on the contract, made clear the circumstances under which his former press officer was entitled to terminal benefits.

Nowhere did he say that those payments were due only in case her employment was terminated prematurely, observed the court.

It was only the respondents who sought to lend a different interpretation to that clause and as rightly argued by Mizzi, the clause in question appeared to have been given such different interpretation only in her case.

In light of such considerations the court upheld the appeal and liquidated the sum due to Mizzi as amounting to €14,398.20 payable by the respondents.

In a clarification on Thursday, the government said that without going into the merits of the particular ruling, the principal permanent secretary was never called as a witness in the case.

"Furthermore, this particular case was never referred to him neither by the person in question nor by the relevant department which processed her contract of work."

He became aware of it when the judgement was handed down, the government said.