If a party to any action does not produce any evidence in a damages case, it may implicitly admit to responsibility. This was held in Catania Fisheries Limited vs Adrian Zerafa decided by the First Hall of the Civil Court on 6 November 2024. Judge Anna Felice presided.
The plaintiff company filed a sworn application in which it explained that it owned two warehouses on which solar panels were installed. In February 2019, these solar panels were damaged and electricity was not being generated. The accident took place when the solar panels of the Defendant which were installed on his property came loose and were thrown on the Plaintiff’s roof. The damages claimed included damage to the solar panels and loss in subsidies on the electricity. The Plaintiff asked the court to order the Defendant to pay for the damages it would liquidate.
The Defendant, Zerafa, argued that he did not cause the damage. He explained that on the day there was a storm and his solar panels dislodged and flew on the Plaintiff company’s property. He also claimed that his contractor, Power Plus Limited, which later was called into the suit, had installed the solar panels badly. Therefore, it was more of a force majeure.
Power Plus said there was nothing defective in its work, but the damage was caused due to a storm. In fact, the solar panels of the Defendant were installed a while before the storm.
The court pointed out that Zerafa had testified and admitted that what the Plaintiff held was correct. The solar panels and bricks on which they rested did end up on the neighbour’s roof. Zerafa had engaged an engineer to report on the cause of the damage and he testified that the solar panels were not secured professionally.
On the issue whether Power Plus should have been called into the action, the court acknowledged it did not have any judicial relationship with the Plaintiff. But the court held that any party which may be connected to the merits of the case – responsibility for the accident – may form part of the action. The Defendant claimed that Power Plus failed to attach the solar panels properly and therefore was the cause of the damages. Power Plus argued that it should not be held responsible for the failings of the Defendant, hinting that he did not carry out proper maintenance of the solar panels.
The court noted that Power Plus did not produce any evidence to support its claims and did not contest the estimate of the damages. The court took this to mean that it was admitting implicitly that it was responsible for the failings.
The damages consisted in loss of earnings and damages to the solar panels. This amounted to €2,258. As to the loss of electricity that would have been generated, the court held there was no loss. A representative of REWS explained that the solar panels were not licensed and were not operative at the time of the accident. The Plaintiff had applied to connect them to the grid and this was not followed up.
The court ruled that both the Defendant and Power Plus jointly were to pay the Plaintiff the sum of €2,258.
Av. Malcolm Mifsud
Partner
Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates
This article may also be accessed on Malta Today.
For more information you can contact one of our Team Members at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates.
