Updated June 10
A man has been awarded compensation for a civil case that took a staggering 32 years to be concluded and was characterised by the "great lethargy" of the presiding judge.
The court attributed much of the blame to the presiding judge for “losing control over the administration of the case” but also blamed the two sides who did not utter a word about the way the case was prolonged unnecessarily.
The impression one gets is that the court lost control of the administration of the case- Mr Justice Toni Abela
Mr Justice Toni Abela awarded Joseph Ciantar €7,000 after taking into consideration the fact that he too contributed to the delay by, among others, requesting an additional expert report at the 11th hour. This alone delayed the case by a further four years.
The First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction heard that Ciantar and his son, Alexander, were first accused of misappropriating funds from the company they worked for, Mabrouk Limited. The company sued them, claiming they had pocketed proceeds for rustproofing works they had carried out on the side using company materials and machinery.
The case was first filed in September 1984 and the final judgment by the appeals court was handed down at the end of April 2016. No details were given on who won the case or who the judge that presided over it was. Neither are any of the judgments available online.
Caselaw does not give time limit
Mr Justice Abela listed a long number of European Court of Human Rights judgments which tackled the issue of court delays and gave its interpretation on what determining a case within reasonable time meant.
The judge said case law established that the duration of court cases depended on a number of factors including the complexity of the case, the way the court administered it and the conduct of the parties. Caselaw did not establish an absolute time limit.
According to the case file, there seemed to be “great lethargy” on the part of the presiding judge, who easily deferred the case from one date to another, often without providing justification.
“The impression one gets is that the court lost control of the administration of the case, with the parties seemingly taking the court for a ride by giving the impression that they wanted to reach some out-of-court settlement. [Ciantar] does not seem to have gone out his way to ensure that the case was concluded,” the court observed.
When the case was put off for judgment, Ciantar requested an expert report.
Mr Justice Abela said he could not understand how the presiding judge had permitted this but it was a clear indication that Ciantar did not want the case to reach any conclusion.
The only time any of the parties tried to nudge the court was in September 1996 and it eventually led to a change in the presiding judge.
After having considered Ciantar’s contribution to the court delay, Mr Justice Abela awarded him €7,000 in compensation payable by the state advocate.