Comptroller of Customs condemned to pay damages (Malta, Civil Court, First Hall)

4 May 2010, Valletta. Ref: Citaz. Nru 454/1995/1. The First Hall of the Civil Court upheld a claim for damages against the Comptroller of Customs, and went on to liquidate the same damages.

The Plaintiff, a shipping company, sued the Comptroller of Customs and two food import companies that used its services, after a number of containers it owned were caught up in a garnishee order issued against these food importers who were suspected of, and eventually criminally condemned for, committing offences related to importation of merchandise. The plaintiff shipping company incurred expenses leasing other containers to replace those held up by the garnishee order. This situation lasted for a number of years: the Comptroller of Customs for three years refused to release the containers, until court action commenced; once the Comptroller of Customs accepted to release the containers, the plaintiff company was prohibited by the Health Department from taking the containers before their contents were destroyed (the contents of the containers were food items, by that time not fit for human consumption).

The Court found the Comptroller of Customs uniquely responsible for the damages suffered, exonerating the food importers who were co-defendants in this court action. The Court ruled that while the Comptroller of Custom's garnishee order against the two food importers seems to have been justified, the Comptroller of Customs had no right to extend the garnishee to property belonging to another party that was not in any way involved in the matter. As soon as the Comptroller of Customs was informed that the containers did not belong to his debtors, he should have ordered their release (that is, the release of the containers, and not of their contents).

Amongst its defence pleas, the Comptroller of Customs accused the plaintiff of not doing enough to limit the damages it incurred. The Comptroller of Customs submitted that the plaintiff could have sought court permission for the release of the containers. The Court denied this defence plea, pointing out that the plaintiff was affected by a garnishee order, and not a warrant of seizure. The containers in question (and their contents) were never deposited or otherwise placed under the authority of the Court, but were retained at the Customs. The effect of a garnishee order is such that the garnishee is ordered not to pay to the debtor, or to any other person, money or things belonging to the debtor. Thus the Comptroller of Customs did not require court permission to release the containers and merely keep the contents of the containers.

The Comptroller of Customs was condemned to pay the plaintiff company €12,418, this being the expense incurred leasing containers to replace those that the Comptroller of Customs held up.

The judgement is available (in Maltese) at http://docs.justice.gov.mt/SENTENZI2000_PDF/MALTA/CIVILI,%20PRIM%20AWLA/2010/2010-05-04_454-1995-1_61091.PDF