Abuse of monopolistic position (Court of Magistrates, Malta)

Plaintiff produced a letter from MEPA stating that the money in question would go to a trust fund and used towards an environmental rehabilitation project.  The same letter specifically stated that if the money is not utilized within three years from the date of issue of the permit, it will be refunded. The development permit required a bank guarantee for 11,646.86, but did not reiterate the intentions stated in the earlier letter. MEPA thus claimed in its defence that it did no owe any refund.
 
The Court expressed preoccupation over MEPA’s behaviour (p. 5 et seq of the judgement, extracts of which are translated below):
 
‘The situation is very preoccupying since the defendant Authority, which enjoys a statutory monopoly in the granting or refusing of development permits, seems to be profiteering from this monopoly and imposing conditions that go beyond its remit…
 
When it imposes conditions that go beyond its statutory limits, it is using its monopoly to blackmail the developer who has no choice but to obey…
 
The Authority also abused in the correspondence that it entered into with the applicant, because it wrote one thing and then in the permit indicated something else;
 
This lack of good faith on the part of a statutory administrative organ endowed with such important responsibilities is very preoccupying, since such agencies are obliged to act in good faith…’
 
MEPA was ordered to refund the money.
 
The judgement is available (in Maltese) at http://docs.justice.gov.mt/SENTENZI2000_PDF/MALTA/TAL-MAGISTRATI%20(CIVILI)/2010/2010-06-02_133-2009_61596.PDF