Outdated court notification procedure
Court delays: you’ve heard and read about them and you might have experienced them.
While much-needed reforms have been and are being enacted within the justice sector to instil efficiency, one fundamental, all-pervasive and well-known problem has been regrettably overlooked.
As basic as it may seem, the notification process is of fundamental importance when instituting a court case. This process can, at times, be used to attack the validity of a judgment and, hence, one will certainly understand the importance of getting it right.
When notifications keep coming in the negative, one may be authorised to affect notification by publication in terms of Art. 187(3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta).
This chiefly consists of appending copies of the judicial act to the front door of the known residence of the recipient, the notice boards of the police station and the local council in the locality where that residence is found. This notification process is completed upon the publication of a summary of the act in the government gazette and a local newspaper.
This is, unfortunately, a very common practice for lawyers assisting their clients in court litigation and it involves incurring unnecessary expenses and wasting a lot of time, sometimes taking months, if not years, before a court case can finally take off.
Now that court services in Malta are being run by an agency, this procedural law is in dire need of being completely overhauled and we must seriously consider introducing a process service network, as is the practice in most EU member states.
Such a network can handle the service at competitive rates. The idea would be to cut through the bureaucracy and red tape to get the service completed with as little delay as possible. Service can be provided through methods that are acceptable to our courts.
I believe that, in Malta, there already exist companies and entities that are equipped with teams of skilled, knowledgeable, diligent and competent service specialists.
True, in this manner, some extra costs will be incurred but the advantage of greatly saving precious lost time would surely outweigh such an additional financial burden.
Perhaps the minister for justice will finally recognise the need for such a radical change.
MARK SAID, LL.D