In a judgment handed down on the 17th February 2025 in the names Anthony Pace vs Marsa Rebar Ltd et, the First Hall, Civil Court decided that it does not have the power to appoint a provisional administrator when the demand is made in the context of proceedings under article 402 of the Companies Act.
Mr. Pace filed proceedings against several defendants under Article 402 of the Companies Act. Among other requests, he sought the appointment of a provisional administrator. The respondent company argued that a provisional administrator cannot be appointed in proceedings based on Article 402 and that the court has such authority only in the context of company liquidation under Articles 214 and 228 of the Companies Act. The respondents further maintained that jurisprudence on this point is clear, citing the judgment Patricia Apap Bologna vs Raphael Bianchi (16 December 2010), which states that a provisional administrator may only be appointed in winding-up proceedings.
The court, after considering several judgments, including Lonavi Properties Limited vs Balkan Power Invest Holding Limited (First Hall, Civil Court, 9 June 2011), concluded that while it has broad powers to grant interim measures in cases under Article 402, it does not have the authority to appoint a provisional administrator in such proceedings.
The defendant was represented by Louis de Gabriele and Francesca Galea Cavallazzi of Camilleri Preziosi.
Read the full judgement here: https://ecourts.gov.mt/onlineservices/Judgements/Details?JudgementId=0&CaseJudgementId=146595
