Laserpoint Ltd v Prime Minister of Malta and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Hon. Mrs Justice Patterson DBE,Mrs Justice Patterson |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1820 (QB) |
| Date | 20 July 2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB/2016/0065 |
[2016] EWHC 1820 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Hon. Mrs Justice Patterson DBE
Case No: QB/2016/0065
Marie Louise Kinsler and Alistair Mackenzie (instructed by DWF LLP) for the Appellant
Donald Lilly (instructed by Seymours) for the Respondents
Hearing date: 28–29 June 2016
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Introduction
This is an appeal from the order of 14 January 2016 of Master Roberts declaring that a judgment in the Civil Court in Malta dated 30 January 2013 may be enforced in England and Wales against Laserpoint Limited ("Laserpoint"), the appellant.
The judgment was given in proceedings that were commenced in April 1987 arising out of a fire which occurred in Malta the previous month. The judgment held that the appellant and MFPS Limited ("MFPS"), both English registered companies, were jointly liable for half of the damages resulting from the fire.
The appellant filed its appeal against the order of Master Roberts on 17 March 2016.
Factual background
The dispute arose from a fire in Malta in March 1987 at the Mediterranean Conference Centre ("MCC") during a vehicle launch by Daihatsu (UK) Limited ("Daihatsu") which subsequently changed its name to MFPS Limited.
Laserpoint was a company incorporated on 15 August 1978. It provided services to clients globally, including for large and high profile events. It was engaged by a production company, Penney Associates, to provide services for the Daihatsu vehicle launch including a laser lighting display.
Three of Laserpoint's employees, namely, Andrew Creighton, Christopher Forbes and Romano Malocca, were sent out to Malta to set up and implement the laser lighting display.
On 25 March 1987 a fire occurred at the MCC. The Maltese authorities detained various people including the three Laserpoint employees. On 27 March 1987 an article was published in the Maltese Times. It said that a full scale inquiry was being held with a team of experts appointed by the court to help in the inquiry. It went on and said under the subheading "Cause of Fire":
"It appeared that the fire was caused by a laser brought to Malta by a British firm involved in the conference at which a model of a new car was to have been introduced."
The report added that the laser appeared to have been focused on the wooden emblem of Malta which caught fire. The fire spread to the velvet curtain and the soffit of the Republic Hall. The damage caused to the MCC was heavy and the Government was taking the necessary steps so that whoever was responsible would make good for the damage.
On 30 March 1987 Andrew Holmes, a director with Laserpoint, sent a telex to the Secretary of the Maltese Ministry of Foreign Affairs which said:
"We understand that in an article in the Maltese Times newspaper today, 27 March, the lasers were being blamed as the cause of the fire. Our chief engineer on site, Mr Romano Malocca, has already explained to your police on the night of the fire that the laser equipment in use could not have caused the fire in any circumstances… I would like to assure you that there is no possibility of this equipment causing a fire in these circumstances and therefore, that the individuals in my employ are being wrongly held in Malta at this time…"
On 1 April 1987 the Attorney General in Malta wrote to the Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs instructing him to send a telex to the Malta High Commissioner for onward transmission to the appellant seeking that the company forward details of its insurance cover in respect of hazards at the MCC. No response has ever been received.
On 3 April 1987 the Prime Minister, the Minister of Tourism and the Acting Commissioner for Lands filed two applications in the First Hall of the Civil Court of Malta which were for:
i) a garnishee order of up to 2 million lira against the employees of the appellant and a Mr Cave, who was employed by Daihatsu. That application included an application for appointment of curators (legal representatives) for the appellant.
ii) warrants of impediment to prevent the employees and Mr Cave from leaving the island.
On 9 April 1987 a meeting was held between the Maltese Government officials and solicitors, Mr Lorimer and Mr Lanhurst, at Masters & Co. of Cambridge, acting for Laserpoint. The notes of that meeting read:
"Made clear first position:
(a) three persons may leave Malta if a deposit of security is made.
(b) sum claimed LM 2 million. If a lesser sum is later assessed the security will be reduced.
(c) not possible for two to leave and one stays behind.
(d) exclude compassionate ground for one of them as this is not a criminal but a civil matter."
On 10 April 1987 the Attorney General informed the British High Commissioner that he had met with solicitors and would be meeting the lawyers for Daihatsu the following day.
On 14 April 1987 the Maltese court appointed curators, Victor Borg Grech and George Siliana for the appellant as the company was not represented in Malta.
On 21 April 1987 Mr Martin Bakes of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP was retained by the insurers of Laserpoint, Royal Insurance. He believes that his firm was instructed by Royal Insurance to investigate the circumstances of the fire, to advise and conduct the defence of any claims that might be made against Laserpoint. He was aware that employees of Laserpoint, who had been working in Malta, had been detained there after the fire. He believes that he travelled to Malta and saw the employees over the weekend of 25 and 26 April. He may have met with a Maltese lawyer but cannot recall his name and whether he saw him in order to act for Royal Insurance or whether he was retained by Laserpoint to act in relation to the detention of the employees. He does recall that the employees did not believe that the laser equipment could have caused the fire. He has no recollection of anyone informing him that proceedings had been issued in Malta against Laserpoint for damages. His recollection was that, at the time, the point of most immediate concern was the detention of the employees in Malta. After his return he anticipated a claim might be made against Laserpoint by the owners of the conference centre but after several years no claim had been pursued and he closed his file. He did act in the third party claim where he was instructed by Royal Insurance. That claim was concluded in about 1994 and he closed his file.
A copy of the writ in the proceedings was served upon the curators on 24 April 1987 and upon the three Laserpoint employees on 30 April 1987.
The employees filed a declaration with the court on 19 May 1987.
There is no dispute that service on a curator is valid service under Maltese law. There is no evidence before the court that the curators had contact with the appellant or with its directors. Andrew Holmes, in his witness statement, says that he has had no contact with anyone acting on behalf of the appellant and no knowledge that there was anyone who so acted. The respondents have not produced any such evidence.
A copy of the writ was sent by registered post on 5 May 1987 to the appellant at its registered address at 78 Hatton Gardens, London EC1N 8JA. A certificate of service and certificate of posting of recorded delivery are in the court papers.
In fact, 78 Hatton Gardens is the business address of Pannell Kerr Forster, the appellant's accountants until 18 December 1986. On or around 24 April 1987 a notice was filed changing the appellant's registered company address to 44/45 Clifton Road, Cambridge. On 18 May 1987 the entry at Companies House for Laserpoint was updated to reflect that information.
On 27 May 1987 Victor Grech, as curator for the appellant, filed a statement of defence and declaration and informed the court that he was not aware of the facts. The same day the three employees filed a statement of defence. On 14 September 1987 representatives of the employees filed a note waiving representation as the employees had left Malta.
On 31 March 1989 the appellant's business was sold to Laserpoint Communications and it became a dormant non-trading company. It was struck off the companies register on 11 November 1997 and dissolved by notice in the London Gazette on 18 November 1997. At all times from 22 August 1978 Andrew Holmes was a director.
On at least two occasions, in 2001 and in 2003, the curator for Laserpoint informed the Maltese court that the appellant had been dissolved. Mr Grech said that his appearance was irregular as he was representing a person that no longer existed.
Both parties have appointed Maltese lawyers to consider the chronology which led to a delay of nearly 26 years before judgment was issued and to advise on Maltese law. The cause of the delay appears to be as follows:
i) A delay in appointing a court appointed expert;
ii) A delay in appointing a technical expert in laser technology. One, Kenneth Abala, was found in 1993 and appointed in 1994;
iii) A delay to allow Mr Abala to compile his submissions;
iv) Delay on the part of the parties not attending sittings and on the part of the court appointed expert until 1996. On 29 April 1996, at a hearing at which Victor Grech, was present the court ordered collection of evidence to continue;
v) There were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The London Steam-Ship Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v The Kingdom of Spain M/T ‘Prestige’
...it must be apparent that the judgment is ‘plainly or obviously contrary to public policy’ (as it was put by Patterson J in Laserpoint Ltd v Prime Minister of Malta [2016] EWHC 1820 (QB) at [60]), or that it must be ‘obvious that public policy dictates refusal [of enforcement]’ (as it was p......