Copyright maltatoday
The Civil Court has dismissed a damages claim filed by 14 pitkala against the Agriculture Ministry and senior officials, ruling that the loss of their licences in 2021 was not caused by government misconduct but by the agents’ own failure to meet the legal requirements for licence renewal. The case, decided by Judge Audrey Demicoli on Friday, centred on allegations that the government had promised to abolish a legally-required bank guarantee for pitkala, only to later insist on its renewal at shorter notice and at a higher rate than expected. The plaintiffs argued that this reversal forced them out of business and rendered around 80 workers unemployed. The plaintiffs, who had operated for years at the Ta’ Qali wholesale market, claimed that during meetings with the ministry in late 2020 and early 2021, officials had committed to removing the bank guarantee system which they said placed disproportionate financial strain on the sector. They argued that they relied on those assurances when they decided not to renew their guarantees. However, when they were informed in March 2021 that the guarantee had to be renewed to keep their licences valid, they were unable to comply in time. Their licences subsequently expired, blocking them from operating and dealing at the market. In court, the defendants, the Minister for Agriculture, the Permanent Secretary, and the Director General for Rural Affairs, denied any wrongdoing, insisting that while reforms had indeed been discussed, no legal change had ever been enacted. They argued that discussions about policy changes do not amount to binding commitments. The court agreed. It ruled that while negotiations took place, the regulatory framework requiring the bank guarantee remained in force, and the pitkala were legally obliged to comply if they wished to retain their licences. Any expectation that the law would be changed, the judge noted, was “premature”. Demicoli also rejected the accusation that the renewal notice, issued days before the legal expiry of 31 March, was unfair or designed to ambush the operators. The expiry date was fixed by law, she noted, and previous years’ administrative delays did not alter the legal obligation. The court went further, concluding that the plaintiffs could have renewed their licences even without formal notification, and that their predicament stemmed from their own decision not to meet the legal requirements; a decision taken before any changes to the law had actually materialised. The court therefore ruled that there was no bad faith on the part of the government, and no entitlement to compensation for alleged lost profits, goodwill, assets, or other damages. Two of the claimants, the Pitkala Association as an entity, and one individual acting on behalf of another, were also found to lack the necessary legal interest to sue. The judgement concluded with the plaintiffs ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
