1
 
 
 
QORTI CIVILI 
(SEZZJONI TAL-KUMMERC) 
 
 
ONOR . IMHALLEF  
JOSEPH ZAMMIT MCKEON  
 
 
Illum il-Hamis 29 ta` Novembru 2018 
 
 
 
Kawza Nru. 2 
Rikors Nru. 605 /2017 JZM 
 
 
 
1.  Balticmax Holding Company Limited 
(C-70765) ; 
 
u 
 
2.  Av. Jonathan Abela Fiorentino (k.i. 
555482M), bhala mandatarju specjali 
ta` Arlie Sterling, detentur tal-
Passaport Amerikan bin-numru 
444918779, u wkoll bhala mandatarju 
specjali ta` Marsoft International 
A/S, socjeta` registrata fin-Norvegja 
bin-numru 937 657 927 u b`indirizz 
registrat ta` Inkognitogata 33A, 0256 
Oslo, fin-Norvegja   
 
kontra 
   
 2 
 
1.  Vroon Containers B.V., socjeta` 
registrata fl-Olanda bin-numru 
22055081 u b`indirizz registrat ta` 
Haven Westzijde 21, 4511 AR 
Breskens, fl-Olanda; 
 
2.  Herman Marks, detentur tal-
Passaport Olandiz bin-numru 
BURC14296; 
 
3.  Stefan Quist, detentur tal-Passaport 
Olandiz bin-numru NNPoJ28B3;  
 
4.  Balticmax Acquisition Corporation 
One Ltd (C-70766); u 
 
5.  Registratur tal-Kumpanniji 
 
 
Il-Qorti :  
 
 
I. Preliminari  
 
  
Rat ir-rikors guramentat prezentat fl-4 ta` Lulju 2 017 li jaqra hekk :– 
 
 
1. Illi s-socjeta` rikorrenti Marsoft International A/ S (“Marsoft”) 
hija membru fis-socjeta` Balticmax Holding Company Limited (C-70765) 
(“BHC”) u ghandha hamsin fil-mija (50%) tal-ishma f l-istess socjeta` waqt li l-
membru l-iehor hija s-socjeta` intimata Vroon Conta iners B.V. (“Vroon”), li 
ghandha l-hamsin fil-mija (50%) l-ohra tal-ishma u dan kif jirrizulta mill-
memorandum u l-istatut tas-socjeta` BHC (kopja hawn  annessa “Dok. A”); 
 
 
2. Illi is-socjeta intimata Balticmax Acquisition C orporation One 
Limited (C-70766) (“AC1”) giet registrata bhala sus sidjarja ta` BHC. AC1 
ghandha diversi kumpanniji sussidjarji li huma prop rjetarji ta` numru ta` 
   
 3bastimenti, li jiffurmaw l-assi ta` din l-istruttur a ta` kumpanniji, li l-
beneficjarji taghha huma finalment Marsoft u Vroon in kwantu ghal hamsin 
fil-mija (50%) kull wahda;    
 
 
3. Illi is-socjeta` BHC ghandha, u fiz-zmien releva nti ghal din il-
kawza kellha,  zewg diretturi, li huma r-rikorrent Arlie Sterling nominat mis-
socjeta` rikorrenti Marsoft u l-intimat Herman Mark s nominat mis-socjeta` 
Vroon;     
 
 
4. Illi ad insaputa tar-rikorrenti Arlie Sterling u  Marsoft, u 
minghajr l-awtorizzazzjoni tal-Bord tad-Diretturi u  l-Laqgha Generali ta` 
BHC u AC1, l-intimati Vroon, Herman Marks, u Stefan  Quist jew min 
minnhom qabdu u irregistraw mar-Registratur tal-Kum panniji: 
 
 
(i) avviz Form T (hawn annessa “Dok. C”) li jindika  li l-ishma 
ordinarji kollha li BHC ghandha fis-socjeta Balticm ax Acquisition 
Corporation One Limited (“AC1”) (ossija 2000 sehem b`valur ta` USD1 kull 
sehem) gew trasferiti lil Vroon b`effett mis-7 ta` April 2017, 
 
 
(ii) risoluzzjoni datata is-7 ta` April 2017 (hawn annessa “Dok. D”) 
iffirmata minn Herman Marks ghan-nom ta` BHC qua az zjonista ta` AC1 li 
tirrigwarda l-hrug ta` 50,000 ishma ordinarji godda  f`AC1 favur Vroon u s-
sostituzzjoni tal-memorandum u l-istatut ta` AC1 b`  memorandum u statut 
gdid,   
 
(iii) avviz Form H (hawn annessa “Dok. E”) li jindi ka li nhargu 
50,000 ishma ordinarji godda f`AC1 favur Vroon b`ef fett mis-7 ta` April 2017,  
 
 
(iv) avviz Form K (hawn annessa “Dok. F”) li jindik a li gie appuntat 
l-intimat Stefan Quist, impjegat ta` Vroon, bhala d irettur u segretarju ta` AC1 
flimkien mad-diretturi Herman Marks u Arlie Sterlin g b`effett mis-7 ta` April 
2017 biex b`hekk zdied direttur iehor appunat minn Vroon sabiex ikollha 
maggoranza fil-Bord tad-Diretturi, u 
 
 
   
 4(v)  Avviz Form I(1) (hawn annessa “Dok. G”) li jin dika li AC1 ma 
baqghetx single member company. 
 
 
5. Illi l-effett ta` dawn it tibdiliet kien dak li BHC giet zvestita 
mhux biss mill-proprjetà tal-ishma ordinarji u cioe ` 2000 sehem fis-socjeta` 
AC1 izda wkoll mill-kontroll ta` AC1 u b`hekk tas-s ussidjarji kollha u l-assi 
kollha li ghandha AC1. Dan ifisser illi l-kontroll tal-grupp ta` kumpanniji li 
gie stabbilit biex ikun ta` Vroon u Marsoft in kwan tu ghal 50% kull wahda, 
ittiehed illegalment minn Vroon in kwantu ghal 100%  (ara l-organogram 
hawn anness Dok. H). 
  
 
6. Illi l-atti kollha fuq imsemmija saru b`qerq bi hsara tal-jeddijiet 
ta` BHC u ta` Marsoft. Vroon kienet taf b`dan ghali ex l-atti li bihom saru 
dawn it-tibdiliet gew effettwati principalment minn  Herman Marks li l-firma 
tieghu tidher fuq id-dokumenti kollha meta Herman M arks huwa membru 
tal-`group managing board` ta` Vroon li hija l-pers una li bbenefikat minn 
dawn l-atti. 
 
 
7. Illi minghajr pregudizzju ghas-suespost, BHC, Ma rsoft u Vroon, 
iffirmaw ftehim datat 6 ta` Ottubru 2015 u msejjah `BHC Co-operation 
Agreement` (kopja hawn annessa `Dok. B`) intiz sabi ex fost l-ohrajn jirregola 
r-relazzjoni tal-partijiet kif ukoll it-tmexxija ta l-istess socjeta` BHC. Dan il-
ftehim inter alia jiddisponi li “the overall strate gic direction of the Business of 
BHC and its subsidiaries shall be determined by the  Parties unanimously in a 
general meeting of the shareholders. Such strategic  matters include the 
following: ..... the acquisition (by subscription o r transfer) or the disposal of or 
granting of any option, charge or other encumbrance  over any shares or 
securities of any company”. 
 
 
8. Illi fl-14 ta` Gunju 2017 ir-rikorrenti ottjenew  il-hrug ta` mandat 
t`inibizzjoni numru 734/17 SM kontra l-intimati in konnessjoni mal-mertu 
ta` dan ir-rikors.  
 
 
9. Illi ghal kull bwon fini jigi dikjarat li r-Regi stratur tal-
Kumpanniji qed jigi mdahhal bhala intimat f`din il- kawza limitatament in 
relazzjoni mal-ordnijiet li dina l-Onorabbli Qorti jista` joghgobha taghti lill-
   
 5istess Registratur fil-kaz li takkolji t-talbiet ta r-rikorrenti, u mhux sabiex 
jinzamm responsabbli flimkien mal-intimati l-ohrajn  ghall-agir tal-istess 
intimati. 
 
 
Ghaldaqstant, ir-rikorrenti noe umilment jitlob li,  ghar-ragunijiet 
premessi u prevja kull dikjarazzjoni ohra xierqa u opportuna, din l-Onorabbli 
Qorti joghgobha: 
 
 
(1) Tiddeciedi u tiddikjara li: t-trasferiment tal- ishma ordinarji fis-
socjeta` Balticmax Acquisition Corporation One Limi ted (ossija 2000 sehem 
b`valur ta` USD1 kull sehem) minn Balticmax Holding  Company Limited lil 
Vroon Conatiners B.V. u r-registrazzjoni ta` l-avvi z Form T relattiv (“Dok. C”); 
ir-risoluzzjoni datata is-7 ta` April 2017 (“Dok. D ”) iffirmata minn Herman 
Marks ghan-nom ta` Balticmax Holding Company Limite d qua azzjonista ta` 
Balticmax Acquisition Corporation One Limited li ti rrigwarda l-hrug ta` 
50,000 ishma ordinarji godda f` Balticmax Acquisiti on Corporation One 
Limited favur Vroon Containers B.V. u l-avviz relat tiv Form H (“Dok. E”) u s-
sostituzzjoni tal-memorandum u l-istatut ta` Baltic max Acquisition 
Corporation One Limited b` memoramdum u statut gdid  u l-avviz relattiv 
Form I(1) (“Dok. G”) li jindika li Balticmax Acquis ition Corporation One 
Limited ma baqghetx single member company; u l-hatr a ta` l-intimat Stefan 
Quist, bhala direttur u segretarju ta` Balticmax Ac quisition Corporation One 
Limited u r-registrazzjoni tal-avviz relattiv Form K (“Dok. F”) saru b`qerq bi 
hsara tal-jeddijiet ta` Balticmax Holding Company L imited u ta` Marsoft 
International A/S; 
 
 
(2)  Konsegwentement, tirrexxindi l-atti msemmija fl-eww el talba li 
saru b`qerq bi hsara tal-jeddijiet ta` Balticmax Ho lding Company Limited u 
ta` Marsoft International A/S; 
 
 
(3) Tahtar u tinnomina kuraturi deputati sabiex jir rapprezentaw lil 
kull eventwali kontumaci fuq ir-rexissjonijiet imse mmija, u tiffissa terminu li 
fih ghandom isiru r-rexissjonijiet imsemmija u dan kollu previa kull 
provvediment iehor li lilha jidhrilha xieraq u oppo rtun.  
 
 
   
 6(4) Tordna lill-kumpannija intimata Balticmax Acqui sition 
Corporation One Ltd biex taghmel dak kollu li hu ne cessarju sabiex ir-registri 
kollha tal-kumpannija, inkluz ir-registru tal-azzjo nisti tal-istess kumpannija, 
jkunu jirriflettu r-rexxissjoni tal-atti fuq imsemm ija. 
 
 
(5) Tordna lir-Registratur tal-Kumpanniji biex jagh mel dak kollu li 
hu necessarju sabiex ir-Registru jkun jirrifletti r -rexxissjoni tal-atti fuq 
imsemmija inkluz, minghajr pregudizzju ghal general ità ta` din it-talba, il-
kancellament mir-registru tal-avvizi Form T, Form K , Form H, Form I(1) u 
tar-risoluzzjoni datata is-7 ta` April 2017 iffirma ta minn Herman Marks 
ghan-nom ta` Balticmax Holding Company Limited qua azzjonista ta` 
Balticmax Acquisition Corporation One Limited li ti rrigwarda l-hrug ta` 
50,000 ishma ordinarji godda favur Vroon Conatiners  B.V. u s-sostituzzjoni 
tal-memorandum u l-istatut b` memorandum u statut g did. 
 
 
Bl-ispejjez, inkluzi dawk tal-mandat ta` inibizzjon i numru 734/17 SM 
mahrug fl-14 ta` Gunju 2017, kontra l-intimati jew min minnhom, li huma, 
jew ir-rapprezentanti taghhom, huma minn issa ngunt i biex jidhru in 
subizzjoni, u b`rizerva ta` kwalunkwe azzjoni ohra spettanti lir-rikorrenti.  
 
 
Rat il-lista tax-xhieda u l-elenku ta` dokumenti. 
 
 
Rat ir-risposta gurmentata ta` Vroon Containers B.V . li kienet 
prezentata fis-7 ta` Awwissu 2017  u li taqra hekk :- 
 
 
Illi fl-ewwel lok u b`mod preliminarju, din l-Onora bbli Qorti, u l-Qorti 
Maltija in generali, m`ghandhiex il-kompetenza illi  tisma` din il-kawza 
ghaliex din l-azzjoni mhijiex wahda ta` gurisdizzjo ni tal-qrati ta` Malta.  Fil-
fatt, l-azzjonijiet imsemmija mir-rikorrenti, u cio e` t-trasferiment tal-ishma 
ordinarji fis-socjeta` Balticmax Acquisition Corpor ation One Limited, socjeta` 
registrata Malta bin-numru C-70766 u bl-indirizz re gistrat f`Level 3, Valletta 
Buildings, South Street, Valletta, VLT 1103 (“AC1”)  (ossija 2000 sehem 
b`valur ta` USD 1 kull sehem) minn Balticmax Holdin g Company Limited, 
socjeta` registrata Malta bin-numru C-70765 u bl-in dirizz registrat f` Level 3, 
Valletta Buildings, South Street, Valletta, VLT 110 3 (“BHC”) lil Vroon 
Containers B.V., socjetà registrata fl-Olanda bin-n umru 22055081 u 
   
 7b`indirizz registrat ta` Haven Westzijde 21, 4511 A R, Breskens, Olanda 
(“Vroon”) u r-registrazzjoni tal-avviz `Form T` rel attiv; il-hrug ta` 50,000 
ishma ordinarji godda f`AC1 favur Vroon u r-registr azzjoni tal-avviz relattiv 
“Form H”; s-sostituzzjoni tal-memorandum u l-istatu t ta` AC1 
b`memorandum u statut gdid u r-registrazzjoni tal-a vviz relattiv `Form I (1)`; 
u l-hatra tal-intimat Stefan Quist, bhala direttur u segretarju ta` AC1 u r-
registrazzjoni tal-avviz relattiv “Form K2,  huma k ollha azzjonijiet fir-
rigward tal-amministrazzjoni u l-ishma tas-socjeta`  jew fis-socjeta` BHC.  
BHC kienet dahlet fi ftehim maghruf bhala il-`BHC C o-operation Agreement` 
datat 6 t`Ottubru 2015 flimkien ma` Vroon u Marsoft  International A/S, 
socjeta` registrata fin-Norvegja bin-numru 937 657 927 u b`indirizz registrat 
ta` Inkognitogata 33A, 0256 Oslo, in-Norvegja (“Mar soft”) (kopja diga` 
annessa fil-process u mmarkata “Dok. B”), liema fte him jirregola r-relazzjoni 
bejn BHC, Vroon u Marsoft, u cioe` l-azzjonisti fli mkien mal-istess socjeta` ta` 
liema huma azzjonisti, kif ukoll AC1, bhala parti m is-sistema kummercjali 
shiha, u dan kif urew ir-rikorrenti stess fir-rikor s taghhom meta kwotaw l-
Artiklu 4 ta` dan l-istess ftehim.  Artiklu 4 jiddi sponi li “Such strategic 
matters shall include the following:… (2) Any incre ase or reduction in the 
authorised or issued share capital of the Company;…  (9) Any alteration to or 
amendment of the by-laws of the Company or AC1… (11 )The acquisition (by 
subscription or transfer) or the disposal of or the  granting of any option, 
charge or other encumbrance over shares or securiti es of any company”; 
 
 
Illi l-istess ftehim, u cioe` il-“BHC Co-operation Agreement”, 
jissoprassjedi kwalunkwe provvedimenti ohra inkluz l-istatut tas-socjeta` hekk 
kif spjegat fl-Artiklu 10 fl-istess ftehim, u jiddi sponi bic-car f`Artikolu 19 u 20 
kif gej: 
 
 
19.  Governing Law : This Agreement and all matters  related to 
this Agreement shall be gtoverned by and construed in accordance with 
Norwegian Law without giving effect to any choice o r conflict of law provision 
or rule (whether of Norway or any other jurisdictio n) that would cause the 
application of the laws of any other jurisdiction. 
 
 
20.  Dispute Resolution: Any dispute that may arise  from this 
Agreement shall be settled in Oslo, in English, and  in accordance with the 
Norwegian arbitration act of 14 May 2004 no. 25. Th e Parties undertake and 
agree that all arbitral proceedings will be kept st rictly confidential. 
   
 8 
 
Illi, ghalhekk jidher car li skont il-Ligi Maltija,  partikolarment Kap. 12 
tal-Ligijiet ta` Malta, kif ukoll il-Ligi Ewropea, din l-Onorabbli Qorti ma 
tistax tiehu konjizzjoni ta` dan ir-rikors ghaliex l-azzjonijiet imsemmija kif 
ukoll il-ftehim imsemmi mill-istess rikorrenti mhux  biss huma rregolati mil-
ligi Norvegiza, izda inekwivokkabilment regolati mi nn gurisdizzjoni tal-
arbitragg Norvegiz u dan ad eskluzjoni ta` kwalunkw e gurisdizzjoni ohra, 
b`ghazla esplicita tal-partijiet inkluzi Marsoft u BHC;  
 
 
Illi fit-tieni lok u b`mod preliminarju, u minghajr  pregudizzju ghas-
suespost, ma jidher bl-ebda mod car b`liema rapprez entanza qieghda tidher 
BHC fir-rikors promotur prezentat, u dan hekk kif i r-rapprezentanti legali tal-
istess socjeta` BHC huma, sa fejn taf l-esponenti, ditta u professjonisti legali 
differenti minn dawk li qeghdin jirraprezentaw lir-  rikorrenti u atturi ohrajn 
Arlie Sterling u Marsoft jew/u l-mandatarju specjal i taghhom l-Av. Dr 
Jonathan Abela Fiorentino, u dan kif mhuri, ad ezem pju, mill-minuti ta` 
Laqgha Generali tas-socjeta` BHC datata 1 t`April 2 016 (kopja hawn annessa 
u mmarkata “Dok. VC 12) fejn l-istess ditta giet ap puntata bhala 
rapprezentanta legali tal-istess socjeta` ghall-eww el darba bi ftehim bejn l-
azzjonisti skont l-istatut tal-istess socjeta` BHC (kopja diga` annessa fil-
process u mmarkata “Dok. A”); 
 
 
Illi biex tinbidel r-rapprezentanza legali jew tigi  appuntata 
rapprezentanza legali gdida ghas-socjeta` BHC tehti eg rizoluzzjoni 
straordinarja tal-Laqgha Generali tal-istess socjet a` BHC, u dan skont l-istess 
statut ta` BHC kif ukoll skont il-ftehim bejn il-pa rtijiet Vroon, BHC u Marsoft 
u cioe` il-“BHC Co-operation Agreement”, u din ma s ehhitx; 
 
 
Illi ma jezisti l-ebda lok ghall-kunflitt ta` inter ess, hekk kif miftihem 
fid-digriet interim ta` din l-Onorabbli Qorti tal- 21 ta` Gunju 2017, u li 
jirrigwardja wkoll dawn il-proceduri, fl-atti tar-r ikors numru 304/2016/1 
JZM fl-ismijiet `Abela Fiorentino noe vs Vroon Cont ainers B.V. et` bejn Vroon 
u s-socjeta` BHC ta` liema hija azzjonista u ta` li ema hija thaddan hamsin fil-
mija (50%) tal-ishma, f`sitwazzjoni fejn is-socjeta ` trid tbiddel ir-
rapprezentanza legali jew tappunta rapprezentanza l egali gdida fl-interessi 
taghha u ghalhekk Vroon bhala azzjonista ghandha ti ppartecipa f`tali 
   
 9decizjoni jekk qatt ikun il-kaz, u b`hekk kwalunkwe  decizjoni li ittiehdet, jekk 
ittiehdet, f`dan ir-rigward ma tistax tigi enforzat a; 
 
 
Illi fi kwalunkwe kaz, l-istatut ta` BHC, jispecifi ka f`paragrafu 9.2 illi 
“any director may represent the Company in judicial  proceedings; provided 
that no proceedings may be instituted by the Compan y without the Board`s 
authority” u fl-istess hin, u minghajr pregudizzju ghal-bqija ta` dak li qieghed 
u ser jigi sottomess mill-esponenti, u skont l-iste ss digriet ta` din il-Qorti tal- 
21 ta` Gunju 2017 fl-atti tar-rikors numru 304/2016 /1 JZM, ir-rikorrenti 
Arlie Sterling, bhala direttur fi hdan BHC, almenu kellu jaghti istruzzjonijiet 
lill-istess ditta legali illi thaddan ir-rappresent anza legali tas-socjeta` BHC 
jekk kien hemm il-hsieb illi BHC ghandha tissottome tti kwalunkwe rikors jew 
proceduri legali godda, u mhux jqabbad unilateralme nt lill-istess mandatarju 
u/jew rapprezentant legali tieghu innifsu jew tas-s ocjeta` Marsoft illi taghha 
huwa ko-fondatur u/jew rapprezentant, biex jaghmel dan f`isimhom it-tlieta 
minghajr distinzjoni tal-persuni; 
 
 
Illi l-kunflitt ta` interess hawnhekk qieghed jidhe r bic-car min-naha ta` 
Arlie Sterling u/jew Marsoft fejn qeghdin juzaw, u sahansitra jabbuzaw, mid-
digriet interim ta` din l-Onorabbli Qorti tal-21 ta ` Gunju 2017 fl-atti tar-
rikors numru 304/2016/1 JZM fl-ismijiet `Abela Fior entino noe vs Vroon 
Containers B.V. et` billi mhux talli jkomplu jiffru straw l-interessi u l-
operazzjonijiet ta` BHC u kif ukoll is-socjeta` int imata AC1 u s-sussidjarji 
taghha bhala direttur u/jew azzjonista, rispettivam ent tal-istess BHC, u kif 
ilhom jaghmlu ghal xhur shah, izda issa wkoll billi  jiehdu decizjonijiet 
unilaterali ghal BHC, fl-isem ta` dan l-istess digr iet interim, biex jkomplu 
jipprotegu l-interessi specifici taghhom bhala dire ttur u bhala ko-fundatur 
tas-socjeta` Marsoft, u ta` Marsoft innifisha, u b` dan kollu juzaw lil BHC u l-
istruttura taghha biss biex jaghmlu hsara lil Vroon  u lill-ufficjali taghha; 
 
 
Illi, ghalhekk, jidher car li BHC m`ghandhiex lok b iex taghmel din il-
kawza ghax ma hemmx l-awtorizazzjoni necessarja fuq  il-livell ta` socjeta`, u 
barra minn hekk, hemm kunflitt ta` interess bejn r- rikorrenti kollha u cioe` 
BHC, Arlie Sterling u Marsoft illi din l-Onorabbli Qorti ghandha tiehu in 
kunsiderazzjoni; 
 
 
   
 10 Illi, minghajr pregudizzju ghas-suespost, fil-princ ipju, il-kostituzzjoni 
ta` BHC bhala socjeta` sehhet bil-hrug ta` ekwita` ta` USD 200,000 kull 
azzjonista, mhallsa miz-zewg partijiet Vroon u Mars oft li nghataw hamsin fil-
mija (50%) tal-ishma ordinarji kull wiehed fi hdan BHC. Illi, barra minn dan 
Vroon kellha ftehim ta` Loan Notes ma` BHC, u cioe`  zewg kuntratti ta` self 
datati 6 t`Ottubru 2015 (kopji hawnhekk annessi u m markati “Dok. VC 2” u 
“Dok. VC 3”) fejn Vroon selfet l-ammont totali ta` USD 15,225,000 lil BHC. 
Dan l-ammont ta` flus kellu jintuza esklussivament ghas-sussidjarji ta` BHC 
u l-akkwist ta` vapuri fi hdan l-istruttura miftehm a.  Dan l-ammont imsellef 
unikament minn Vroon kellu jigi mhallas lura minn B HC u Marsoft ntrabtet 
illi jekk dan ma jsehhx skont it-termini tal-Loan N otes u/jew il- “BHC Co-
operation Agreement” hija thallas lura l-ammont ta`  USD 2,100,000 biex 
Vroon tkun tista` almenu tibda tithallas. F`dan kol lu Marsoft ma kellhiex 
aktar partecipazzjoni ta` flus fl-istruttura hlief dik l-ekwita` inizzjali diga` 
msemmija; 
 
 
Illi, fil-fatt, il-partijiet u cioe` Vroon, Marsoft  u l-istess BHC, kellhom il-
ftehim illi Vroon tithallas lura l-kontribuzzjoniji et kollha li ghamlet fi hdan l-
istruttura inkluz bl-interessi u dan cioe` il-flus msellfa bis-sahha tal-Loan 
Notes miftehma bejn BHC u Vroon kif ukoll frott id- drittijiet ta` Vroon fi hdan 
il-`BHC Co-operation Agreement, u dan qatt ma sehh;  
 
 
Illi, ghalhekk, fuq il-bazi tal-Loan Notes, Vroon h ija kreditrici ta` BHC 
ghal-ammont ta` USD 12,225,000 u wkoll ta` spejjez legali, illi kellhom 
jithallsu minn BHC fi zmien 15-il gurnata mid-data tad-decizjoni u dan 
barra interessi sad-data tal- hlas, u dan kif deciz  minn decizjoni tal-Arbitru 
f`Oslo moghtija fil-15 ta` Mejju, 2017 (kopja tad-d ecizjoni bin-Norvegiz kif 
ukoll traduzzjoni bl-Ingliz tal-istess hawnhekk ann essi u mmarkati `Dok. VC 
4`); 
 
 
Illi, fuq il-bazi tal-istess `BHC Co-operation Agre ement`, Vroon hija 
wkoll kreditrici ta` Marsoft ghal-ammont ta` USD 2, 100,000 illi kellhom 
jithallsu mill-istess Marsoft fi zmien 14-il gurnat a mid-data tad-decizjoni, u 
dan barra interessi sad-data tal-hlas, u spejjez ta l-arbitragg ta` NOK 
3,688,166 kif ukoll it-trasferiment ta` 2,49% tal-a zzjonijiet ta` Marsoft fl-istess 
BHC fi zmien 14-il gurnata mid-data tad-decizjoni, li jaghtu maggoranza lill-
istess Vroon fis-socjeta` BHC (kopja tad-decizjoni bin-Norvegiz kif ukoll 
traduzzjoni bl-Ingliz tal-istess hawnhekk annessi u  mmarkati `Dok. VC 5`); 
   
 11  
 
Illi dan kollu qatt ma gie mrodd lil Vroon kif inhu  d-dritt ezekuttiv 
taghha, kemm minn BHC (minhabba ostakli ta` Arlie S terling u l-istess 
Marsoft) u kemm minn Marsoft stess.  Illi, ghalhekk , fil-prattika, Vroon 
ghandha minn tal-inqas maggoranza tal-ishma ordinar ji f`BHC li suppost 
huma taghha, jekk mhux sahansitra l-ishma ordinarji  kollha fi hdan BHC, 
hekk kif l-ishma ta` Marsoft f`BHC jghoddu bhala as si tal-istess Marsoft li 
bihom ghandhom ihallsu d-dejn ezekuttiv li ghandhom  ma` Vroon. Illi, barra 
minn dan, BHC ghandha dejn tant sostanzjali fir-rig ward ta` Vroon kif 
spjegat, illi l-assi kollha ta` BHC frankament qatt  mhu ser ikunu bizzejjed 
biex ihallsu lura dan id-dejn; 
 
 
Illi s-socjeta` BHC thaddan 15,737,500 cumulative r edeemable 
preference shares, fis-socjeta` AC1 u li ghandhom r ahan ta` sigurtajiet 
(pledge) favur l-istess Vroon skont il-ftehim bejn l-istess BHC, AC1 u Vroon, 
iffirmat il-27 ta` Jannar 2016 (kopja hawnhekk anne ssa u mmarkata “Dok. 
VC 6”) u dan kif registrat mal-Malta Financial Serv ices Authority (kopji tad-
dokumenti hawnhekk annessi u mmarkati “Dok. VC 7” u  “Dok. VC 8”), u dan 
kif diga qieghed jigi enfurzat mill-istess Vroon an ki waqt dawn il-proceduri 
prezenti (kopja tal-att gudizzjarju mahrug skont l- Artiklu 122 tal- Att Dwar 
il-Kumpanniji (Kap. 186 tal-Ligi Maltija) hawnhekk anness u mmarkat “Dok. 
VC 9”); 
 
 
Illi fil-kuntest ta` dan kollu, ir-rikorrenti Arlie  Sterling u Marsoft ilhom 
xhur, anzi snin u cioe` minn ftit xhur wara l-kosti tuzzjoni tas-socjeta` BHC, 
ma jaghmlu xejn iktar hlief jfixklu l-operat ta` BH C, AC1 u l-istruttura shiha 
biex fl-ahhar mill-ahhar din waslet fis-sitwazzjoni  konflittwali odjerna; 
 
 
Illi Vroon, min-naha taghha pruvat taghmel mill-ahj ar li tista` biex 
tkompli l-operat tas-socjetajiet BHC u AC1 u s-suss idjarji taghha, anki billi 
hadet f`idejha l-immanigjar u l-operazzjoni ta` kul jum tal-operat ta` AC1 u s-
sussidjarji taghha, anki minghajr hlas ta` xejn u b `telf ghaliha nnifisha; 
 
 
Illi, b`kuntrast, Marsoft u Arlie Sterling ma ghaml u xejn hlief li xeklu 
kwalunkwe decizjoni li qatt pruvat tigi mehuda fis- socjetajiet BHC u AC1 u 
kwazi jizguraw il-falliment tas-socjetajiet msemmij a; 
   
 12  
 
Illi, fil-fatt minn Dicembru tas-sena l-ohra u cioe ` 2016, kien hemm 
tentattivi min-naha ta` Vroon bhala azzjonista f`BH C u Bremer Landesbank 
Kreditanstalt Oldenburg – Girozentrale, bank esteru  registrat u licenzjat 
gewwa l-Germanja ta` Domshof 26, 28105, Bremen, Ger manja (“BLB”) li 
huwa l-akbar kreditur ta` AC1 biex jigi miftiehem f tehim ta` likwidita` 
addizzjonali fi hdan AC1 biex b`hekk tkun tista` tk ompli topera din is-socjeta` 
u l-vapuri fi hdan is-sussidjarji taghha. Kwalunkwe  tentattiv f`dan is-sens 
kien dejjem gie mwaqqaf minn Arlie Sterling u/jew M arsoft, anki jekk l-istess 
BLB kien dispost ghal dan il-ftehim, u dan biss gha x m`ghandhom l-ebda 
interess li jaraw li l-istruttura tkompli topera u tissalva, u m`ghandhom xejn 
x`jitilfu; 
 
 
Illi dak kollu li ghamlet is-socjeta` esponenti kie n biex tissalvagwardja 
l-istruttura ta` BHC u s-sussidjari taghha u tonora  l-obbligazzjonijiet tas-
socjetajiet lejn il-kredituri, principarjament BLB,  u ghalhekk ma jistax jintqal 
li dak kollu li ghamlet Vroon sehh bil-qerq u lanqa s bi hsara tal-jeddijiet ta` 
BHC u/jew Marsoft. 
 
 
Ghaldaqstant, u ghar-ragunijiet kollha premessi, is -socjeta` esponenti 
tissottometti bir-rispett illi : 
 
 
a.  Din l-Onorabbli Qorti m`ghandhiex il-gurisdizzjoni necessarja 
biex tisma` il-mertu ta` dan ir-rikors prezentat he kk kif huwa car illi l-istess 
mertu huwa regolat minn gurisdizzjoni tal-arbitragg  norvegiz; 
 
 
b.  Minghajr pregudizzju ghas-suespost, BHC ma setghetx  
tissottometti dan ir-rikors kif ghamlet prezentemen t ghaliex BHC ghandha 
rapprezentanza legali indipendenti li diga` tista` tissalvagwardja d-drittijiet 
tas-socjeta` u d-digriet ta` din l-Onorabbli Qorti tal- 21 ta` Gunju 2017 fl-atti 
tar-rikors numru 304/2016/1 JZM fl-ismijiet `Abela Fiorentino noe vs Vroon 
Containers B.V. et` ma jaghtix il-lok illi Arlie St erling jiehu r-riedni b`idejh fi 
kwalunkwe azzjoni anki fejn m`hemmx kunflitt ta` in teress min-naha ta` 
Vroon u/jew Herman Marks u jmur kontra l-istatut ta l-istess socjeta` BHC; 
 
 
   
 13 c. Minghajr pregudizzju ghas-suespost, topponi ghat-ta lbiet kollha 
tar-rikorrenti li ghandhom jigu michuda. 
 
 
Salv eccezzjonijiet ulterjuri u b`riserva ta` kull azzjoni ulterjuri li 
ghandha s-socjeta` esponenti fil-ligi, bl-ispejjez kontra r-rikorrenti. 
 
 
Rat ir-risposta guramentata li pprezenta l-konvenut  Herman Marks 
fis-7 ta` Awwissu 2017 li taqra hekk :- 
 
 
Illi fl-ewwel lok u b`mod preliminarju, din l-Onora bbli Qorti, u l-Qorti 
Maltija in generali, m`ghandhiex il-kompetenza illi  tisma` din il-kawza 
ghaliex din l-azzjoni mhijiex wahda ta` gurisdizzjo ni tal-qrati ta` Malta.  Fil-
fatt, l-azzjonijiet imsemmija mir-rikorrenti, u cio e` t-trasferiment tal-ishma 
ordinarji fis-socjeta` Balticmax Acquisition Corpor ation One Limited, socjeta` 
registrata Malta bin-numru C-70766 u bl-indirizz re gistrat f`Level 3, Valletta 
Buildings, South Street, Valletta, VLT 1103 (“AC1”)  (ossija 2000 sehem 
b`valur ta` USD 1 kull sehem) minn Balticmax Holdin g Company Limited, 
socjeta` registrata Malta bin-numru C-70765 u bl-in dirizz registrat f` Level 3, 
Valletta Buildings, South Street, Valletta, VLT 110 3 (“BHC”) lil Vroon 
Containers B.V., socjetà registrata fl-Olanda bin-n umru 22055081 u 
b`indirizz registrat ta` Haven Westzijde 21, 4511 A R, Breskens, Olanda 
(“Vroon”) u r-registrazzjoni tal-avviz “Form T” rel attiv; il-hrug ta` 50,000 
ishma ordinarji godda f`AC1 favur Vroon u r-registr azzjoni tal-avviz relattiv 
“Form H”; s-sostituzzjoni tal-memorandum u listatut  ta` AC1 b`memorandum 
u statut gdid u r-registrazzjoni tal-avviz relattiv  “Form I (1)”; u l-hatra tal-
intimat Stefan Quist, bhala direttur u segretarju t a` AC1 u r-registrazzjoni 
tal-avviz relattiv “Form K”,  huma kollha azzjoniji et fir-rigward tal-
amministrazzjoni u l-ishma tas-socjeta` jew fis-soc jeta` BHC.  BHC kienet 
dahlet fi ftehim maghruf bhala il-`BHC Co-operation  Agreement` datat 6 
t`Ottubru 2015 flimkien ma` Vroon u Marsoft Interna tional A/S, socjeta` 
registrata fin-Norvegja bin-numru 937 657 927 u b`i ndirizz registrat ta` 
Inkognitogata 33A, 0256 Oslo, in-Norvegja (`Marsoft `) (kopja diga` annessa 
fil-process u mmarkata “Dok. B”), liema ftehim jirr egola r-relazzjoni bejn 
BHC, Vroon u Marsoft, u cioe` l-azzjonisti flimkien  mal-istess socjeta` ta` 
liema huma azzjonisti, kif ukoll AC1, bhala parti m is-sistema kummercjali 
shiha, u dan kif urew ir-rikorrenti stess fir-rikor s taghhom meta kwotaw l-
Artiklu 4 ta` dan l-istess ftehim.  Artiklu 4 jiddi sponi li “Such strategic 
matters shall include the following:… (2) Any incre ase or reduction in the 
   
 14 authorised or issued share capital of the Company;…  (9) Any alteration to or 
amendment of the by-laws of the Company or AC1… (11 ) The acquisition (by 
subscription or transfer) or the disposal of or the  granting of any option, 
charge or other encumbrance over shares or securiti es of any company”; 
 
 
Illi l-istess ftehim, u cioe` il-“BHC Co-operation Agreement”, 
jissoprassjedi kwalunkwe provvedimenti ohra inkluz l-istatut tas-socjeta` hekk 
kif spjegat fl-Artiklu 10 fl-istess ftehim, u jiddi sponi bic-car f`Artikolu 19 u 20 
kif gej: 
 
 
19.  Governing Law:  This Agreement and all matters  related to 
this Agreement shall be gtoverned by and construed in accordance with 
Norwegian Law without giving effect to any choice o r conflict of law provision 
or rule (whether of Norway or any other jurisdictio n) that would cause the 
application of the laws of any other jurisdiction. 
 
20.  Dispute Resolution:  Any dispute that may arise fro m this 
Agreement shall be settled in Oslo, in English, and  in accordance with the 
Norwegian arbitration act of 14 May 2004 no. 25. Th e Parties undertake and 
agree that all arbitral proceedings will be kept st rictly confidential. 
 
 
Illi, ghalhekk jidher car li skont il-Ligi Maltija,  partikolarment Kap. 12 
tal-Ligijiet ta` Malta, kif ukoll il-Ligi Ewropea, din l-Onorabbli Qorti ma 
tistax tiehu konjizzjoni ta` dan ir-rikors ghaliex l-azzjonijiet imsemmija kif 
ukoll il-ftehim imsemmi mill-istess rikorrenti mhux  biss huma rregolati mil-
ligi Norvegiza, izda inekwivokkabilment regolati mi nn gurisdizzjoni tal-
arbitragg Norvegiz u dan ad eskluzjoni ta` kwalunkw e gurisdizzjoni ohra, 
b`ghazla esplicita tal-partijiet inkluzi Marsoft u BHC;  
 
 
Illi fit-tieni lok u b`mod preliminarju, u minghajr  pregudizzju ghas-
suespost, ma jidher bl-ebda mod car b`liema rapprez entanza qieghda tidher 
BHC fir-rikors promotur prezentat, u dan hekk kif i r-rapprezentanti legali tal-
istess socjeta` BHC huma, sa fejn taf l-esponenti, ditta u professjonisti legali 
differenti minn dawk li qeghdin jirraprezentaw lir-  rikorrenti u atturi ohrajn 
Arlie Sterling u Marsoft jew/u l-mandatarju specjal i taghhom l-Av. Dr 
Jonathan Abela Fiorentino, u dan kif mhuri, ad ezem pju, mill-minuti ta` 
Laqgha Generali tas-socjeta` BHC datata 1 t`April 2 016 (kopja hawn annessa 
   
 15 u mmarkata “Dok. VC 1”) fejn l-istess ditta giet ap puntata bhala 
rapprezentanta legali tal-istess socjeta` ghall-eww el darba bi ftehim bejn l-
azzjonisti skont l-istatut tal-istess socjeta` BHC (kopja diga` annessa fil-
process u mmarkata “Dok. A”); 
 
 
Illi biex tinbidel ir-rapprezentanza legali jew tig i appuntata 
rapprezentanza legali gdida ghas-socjeta` BHC tehti eg rizoluzzjoni 
straordinarja tal-Laqgha Generali tal-istess socjet a` BHC, u dan skont l-istess 
statut ta` BHC kif ukoll skont il-ftehim bejn il-pa rtijiet Vroon, BHC u Marsoft 
u cioe` il-`BHC Co-operation Agreement`, u din ma s ehhitx; 
 
 
Illi ma jezisti l-ebda lok ghall-kunflitt ta` inter ess, hekk kif miftihem 
fid-digriet interim ta` din l-Onorabbli Qorti tal- 21 ta` Gunju 2017, u li 
jirrigwardja wkoll dawn il-proceduri, fl-atti tar-r ikors numru 304/2016/1 
JZM fl-ismijiet “Abela Fiorentino noe vs Vroon Cont ainers B.V. et” bejn Vroon 
u s-socjeta` BHC ta` liema hija azzjonista u ta` li ema hija thaddan hamsin fil-
mija (50%) tal-ishma, f`sitwazzjoni fejn is-socjeta ` trid tbiddel ir-
rapprezentanza legali jew tappunta rapprezentanza l egali gdida fl-interessi 
taghha u ghalhekk Vroon bhala azzjonista ghandha ti ppartecipa f`tali 
decizjoni jekk qatt ikun il-kaz, u b`hekk kwalunkwe  decizjoni li ittiehdet, jekk 
ittiehdet, f`dan ir-rigward ma tistax tigi enforzat a; 
 
 
Illi fi kwalunkwe kaz, l-istatut ta` BHC, jispecifi ka f`paragrafu 9.2 illi 
“any director may represent the Company in judicial  proceedings; provided 
that no proceedings may be instituted by the Compan y without the Board`s 
authority” u fl-istess hin, u minghajr pregudizzju ghal-bqija ta` dak li qieghed 
u ser jigi sottomess mill-esponenti, u skont l-iste ss digriet ta` din il-Qorti tal- 
21 ta` Gunju 2017 fl-atti tar-rikors numru 304/2016 /1 JZM, ir-rikorrenti 
Arlie Sterling, bhala direttur fi hdan BHC, almenu kellu jaghti istruzzjonijiet 
lill-istess ditta legali illi thaddan ir-rappresent anza legali tas-socjeta` BHC 
jekk kien hemm il-hsieb illi BHC ghandha tissottome tti kwalunkwe rikors jew 
proceduri legali godda, u mhux jqabbad unilateralme nt lill-istess mandatarju 
u/jew rapprezentant legali tieghu innifsu jew tas-s ocjeta` Marsoft illi taghha 
huwa ko-fondatur u/jew rapprezentant, biex jaghmel dan f`isimhom it-tlieta 
minghajr distinzjoni tal-persuni; 
 
 
   
 16 Illi l-kunflitt ta` interess hawnhekk qieghed jidhe r bic-car min-naha ta` 
Arlie Sterling u/jew Marsoft fejn qeghdin juzaw, u sahansitra jabbuzaw, mid-
digriet interim ta` din l-Onorabbli Qorti tal- 21 t a` Gunju 2017 fl-atti tar-
rikors numru 304/2016/1 JZM fl-ismijiet “Abela Fior entino noe vs Vroon 
Containers B.V. et” billi mhux talli jkomplu jiffru straw l-interessi u l-
operazzjonijiet ta` BHC u kif ukoll is-socjeta` int imata AC1 u s-sussidjarji 
taghha bhala direttur u/jew azzjonista, rispettivam ent tal-istess BHC, u kif 
ilhom jaghmlu ghal xhur shah, izda issa wkoll billi  jiehdu decizjonijiet 
unilaterali ghal BHC, fl-isem ta` dan l-istess digr iet interim, biex jkomplu 
jipprotegu l-interessi specifici taghhom bhala dire ttur u bhala ko-fundatur 
tas-socjeta` Marsoft, u ta` Marsoft innifisha, u b` dan kollu juzaw lil BHC u l-
istruttura taghha biss biex jaghmlu hsara lil Vroon  u lill-ufficjali taghha; 
 
 
Illi, ghalhekk, jidher car li BHC m`ghandhiex lok b iex taghmel din il-
kawza ghax ma hemmx l-awtorizazzjoni necessarja fuq  il-livell ta` socjeta`, u 
barra minn hekk, hemm kunflitt ta` interess bejn r- rikorrenti kollha u cioe` 
BHC, Arlie Sterling u Marsoft illi din l-Onorabbli Qorti ghandha tiehu in 
kunsiderazzjoni; 
 
 
Illi, minghajr pregudizzju ghas-suespost, fil-princ ipju, il-kostituzzjoni 
ta` BHC bhala socjeta` sehhet bil-hrug ta` ekwita` ta` USD 200,000 kull 
azzjonista, mhallsa miz-zewg partijiet Vroon u Mars oft li nghataw hamsin fil-
mija (50%) tal-ishma ordinarji kull wiehed fi hdan BHC. Illi, barra minn dan 
Vroon kellha ftehim ta` Loan Notes ma` BHC, u cioe`  zewg kuntratti ta` self 
datati 6 t`Ottubru 2015 (kopji hawnhekk annessi u m markati “Dok. VC 2” u 
“Dok. VC 3”) fejn Vroon selfet l-ammont totali ta` USD 15,225,000 lil BHC. 
Dan l-ammont ta` flus kellu jintuza esklussivament ghas-sussidjarji ta` BHC 
u l-akkwist ta` vapuri fi hdan l-istruttura miftehm a.  Dan l-ammont imsellef 
unikament minn Vroon kellu jigi mhallas lura minn B HC u Marsoft ntrabtet 
illi jekk dan ma jsehhx skont it-termini tal-Loan N otes u/jew il “BHC Co-
operation Agreement” hija thallas lura l-ammont ta`  USD 2,100,000 biex 
Vroon tkun tista` almenu tibda tithallas. F`dan kol lu Marsoft ma kellhiex 
aktar partecipazzjoni ta` flus fl-istruttura hlief dik l-ekwita` inizzjali diga` 
msemmija; 
 
 
Illi, fil-fatt, il-partijiet u cioe` Vroon, Marsoft  u l-istess BHC, kellhom il-
ftehim illi Vroon tithallas lura l-kontribuzzjoniji et kollha li ghamlet fi hdan l-
istruttura inkluz bl-interessi u dan cioe` il-flus msellfa bis-sahha tal-Loan 
   
 17 Notes miftehma bejn BHC u Vroon kif ukoll frott id- drittijiet ta` Vroon fi hdan 
il-“BHC Co-operation Agreement”, u dan qatt ma sehh ; 
 
 
Illi, ghalhekk, fuq il-bazi tal-Loan Notes, Vroon h ija kreditrici ta` BHC 
ghal-ammont ta` USD 12,225,000 u wkoll ta` spejjez legali, illi kellhom 
jithallsu minn BHC fi zmien 15-il gurnata mid-data tad-decizjoni u dan 
barra interessi sad-data tal- hlas, u dan kif deciz  minn decizjoni tal-Arbitru 
f`Oslo moghtija fil-15 ta` Mejju, 2017 (kopja tad-d ecizjoni bin-Norvegiz kif 
ukoll traduzzjoni bl-Ingliz tal-istess hawnhekk ann essi u mmarkati `Dok. VC 
4`); 
 
 
Illi, fuq il-bazi tal-istess “BHC Co-operation Agre ement”, Vroon hija 
wkoll kreditrici ta` Marsoft ghal-ammont ta` USD 2, 100,000 illi kellhom 
jithallsu mill-istess Marsoft fi zmien 14-il gurnat a mid-data tad-decizjoni, u 
dan barra interessi sad-data tal-hlas, u spejjez ta l-arbitragg ta` NOK 
3,688,166 kif ukoll it-trasferiment ta` 2,49% tal-a zzjonijiet ta` Marsoft fl-istess 
BHC fi zmien 14-il gurnata mid-data tad-decizjoni, li jaghtu maggoranza lill-
istess Vroon fis-socjeta` BHC (kopja tad-decizjoni bin-Norvegiz kif ukoll 
traduzzjoni bl-Ingliz tal-istess hawnhekk annessi u  mmarkati “Dok. VC 5”); 
 
 
Illi dan kollu qatt ma gie mrodd lil Vroon kif inhu  d-dritt ezekuttiv 
taghha, kemm minn BHC (minhabba ostakli ta` Arlie S terling u l-istess 
Marsoft) u kemm minn Marsoft stess.  Illi, ghalhekk , fil-prattika, Vroon 
ghandha minn tal-inqas maggoranza tal-ishma ordinar ji f`BHC li suppost 
huma taghha, jekk mhux sahansitra l-ishma ordinarji  kollha fi hdan BHC, 
hekk kif l-ishma ta` Marsoft f`BHC jghoddu bhala as si tal-istess Marsoft li 
bihom ghandhom ihallsu d-dejn ezekuttiv li ghandhom  ma` Vroon. Illi, barra 
minn dan, BHC ghandha dejn tant sostanzjali fir-rig ward ta` Vroon kif 
spjegat, illi l-assi kollha ta` BHC frankament qatt  mhu ser ikunu bizzejjed 
biex ihallsu lura dan id-dejn; 
 
 
Illi s-socjeta` BHC thaddan 15,737,500 cumulative r edeemable 
preference shares, fis-socjeta` AC1 u li ghandhom r ahan ta` sigurtajiet 
(pledge) favur l-istess Vroon skont il-ftehim bejn l-istess BHC, AC1 u Vroon, 
iffirmat il-27 ta` Jannar 2016 (kopja hawnhekk anne ssa u mmarkata `Dok. 
VC 6`) u dan kif registrat mal-Malta Financial Serv ices Authority (kopji tad-
dokumenti hawnhekk annessi u mmarkati “Dok. VC 7” u  “Dok. VC 8”), u dan 
   
 18 kif diga qieghed jigi enfurzat mill-istess Vroon an ki waqt dawn il-proceduri 
prezenti (kopja tal-att gudizzjarju mahrug skont l- Artiklu 122 tal- Att Dwar 
il-Kumpanniji (Kap. 186 tal-Ligi Maltija) hawnhekk anness u mmarkat `Dok. 
VC 9`); 
 
 
Illi fil-kuntest ta` dan kollu, r-rikorrenti Arlie Sterling u Marsoft ilhom 
xhur, anzi snin u cioe` minn ftit xhur wara l-kosti tuzzjoni tas-socjeta` BHC, 
ma jaghmlu xejn iktar hlief jfixklu l-operat ta` BH C, AC1 u l-istruttura shiha 
biex fl-ahhar mill-ahhar din waslet fis-sitwazzjoni  konflittwali odjerna; 
 
 
Illi l-esponenti Herman Marks, min-naha tieghu, bha la direttur ta` 
BHC u ta` AC1, prova jaghmel mill-ahjar li jista`, ghal-gid tal-istess 
socjetajiet, biex jkompli l-operat tas-socjetajiet BHC u AC1 u s-sussidjarji 
taghha, anki billi ha certu decizjonijiet bhala dir ettur favur l-interessi ta` 
BHC u/jew AC1;   
 
 
Illi, b`kuntrast, Marsoft u Arlie Sterling ma ghaml u xejn hlief li xeklu 
kwalunkwe decizjoni li qatt pruvat tigi mehuda fis- socjetajiet BHC u AC1, u 
Herman Marks stess, u kwazi jizguraw il-falliment t as-socjetajiet msemmija; 
 
 
Illi, fil-fatt minn Dicembru tas-sena l-ohra u cioe ` 2016, kien hemm 
tentattivi min-naha ta` Vroon bhala azzjonista f`BH C u Bremer Landesbank 
Kreditanstalt Oldenburg – Girozentrale, bank esteru  registrat u licenzjat 
gewwa l-Germanja ta` Domshof 26, 28105, Bremen, Ger manja (`BLB`) li 
huwa wiehed mill-akbar kredituri ta` AC1 biex jigi miftiehem ftehim ta` 
likwidita` addizzjonali fi hdan AC1 biex b`hekk tku n tista` tkompli topera din 
is-socjeta` u l-vapuri fi hdan is-sussidjarji taghh a. Kwalunkwe tentattiv f`dan 
is-sens kien dejjem gie mwaqqaf minn Arlie Sterling  u/jew Marsoft, anki jekk 
l-istess BLB kien dispost ghal dan il-ftehim, u dan  biss ghax m`ghandhom l-
ebda interess li jaraw li l-istruttura tkompli tope ra u tissalva, u m`ghandhom 
xejn x`jitilfu; 
 
 
Illi dak kollu li ghamel Herman Marks kien biex jis salvagwardja l-
istruttura ta` BHC u s-sussidjari taghha u jonora l -obbligazzjonijiet tas-
socjetajiet lejn il-kredituri, principarjament BLB,  u ghalhekk ma jistax jintqal 
   
 19 li dak kollu li ghamel Herman Marks sehh bil-qerq u /jew bi hsara tal-
jeddijiet ta` BHC u/jew Marsoft. 
 
 
Ghaldaqstant, u ghar-ragunijiet kollha premessi, l- esponenti 
jissottometti bir-rispett illi : 
 
 
a.  Din l-Onorabbli Qorti m`ghandhiex il-gurisdizzjoni necessarja 
biex tisma` il-mertu ta` dan ir-rikors prezentat he kk kif huwa car illi l-istess 
mertu huwa regolat minn gurisdizzjoni tal-arbitragg  norvegiz; 
 
 
b.  Minghajr pregudizzju ghas-suespost, BHC ma setghetx  
tissottometti dan ir-rikors kif ghamlet prezentemen t ghaliex BHC ghandha 
rapprezentanza legali indipendenti li diga` tista` tissalvagwardja d-drittijiet 
tas-socjeta` u d-digriet ta` din l-Onorabbli Qorti tal- 21 ta` Gunju 2017 fl-atti 
tar-rikors numru 304/2016/1 JZM fl-ismijiet `Abela Fiorentino noe vs Vroon 
Containers B.V. et` ma jaghtix il-lok illi Arlie St erling jiehu r-riedni b`idejh fi 
kwalunkwe azzjoni anki fejn m`hemmx kunflitt ta` in teress min-naha ta` 
Vroon u/jew Herman Marks u jmur kontra l-istatut ta l-istess socjeta` BHC; 
 
 
c. Minghajr pregudizzju ghas-suespost, jopponi ghat -talbiet kollha 
tar-rikorrenti li ghandhom jigu michuda. 
 
 
Salv eccezzjonijiet ulterjuri u b`riserva ta` kull azzjoni ulterjuri li 
ghandu l-esponenti fil-ligi, bl-ispejjez kontra r-r ikorrenti. 
 
 
Rat ir-risposta li pprezenta l-konvenut Registratur  tal-Kumpanniji fis-
17 ta` Awwissu 2017   li taqra hekk :- 
 
 
Illi in kwantu ghall-meriti fattwali tal-proceduri odjerni, 
partikolarment in kwantu ghall-fatt jekk il-kumpani ja Balticmax Holding 
Company Ltd. (C 70765) timmeritax illi jigi applika t r-rimedju mitlub 
minnha fir-rikors promotur, l-esponent Registratur tal-Kumpanniji jirrimetti 
ruhu ghad-decizjoni ta` din l-Onorabbli Qorti peres s li hu mhuwiex edott 
ghal-kollox mill-fatti kollha kif dikjarati mill-at turi.  
   
 20  
 
Illi l-konvenut ihoss li l-uniku interess tieghu f` din il-kawza ghandu 
jikkoncerna dak li ghandu x`jaqsam ma` l-operat tie ghu bhala Registratur 
tal-Kumpanniji, kif mitlub mill-Att, partikolarment  fejn jikkoncerna r-
registrazzjoni ta` dokumenti li jkunu mehtiega li j igu konsenjati jew notifikati 
lilu ghar-registrazzjoni skond xi wahda mid-dispozi zzjonijiet tal-Att dwar il-
kumpanniji.  
 
 
Illi bhal ma gie issollevat mir-rikorrent stess fir -rikors promotur tieghu, 
ir-Registratur umilment ihoss illi forsi ma kellux ghalfejn ikun wiehed mill-
legittimi kontraditturi fil-proceduri odjerni. Dan meta wiehed jikkunsidra l-
fatt illi jidher bic-car illi l-bazi ta` dan il-kaz  huwa disgwid intern u personali 
bejn il-partijiet komponenti tal-kumpanija.  
 
 
Illi ghaldaqstant l-esponent jixtieq jissoleva illi  lest illi joqghod ghal 
kull decizjoni jew ordni illi dina l-Onorabbli Qort i jidrilha xierqa u opportuni 
illi taghti cirkostanzi partikolari ta` dan il-kaz.   
 
 
Illi l-konvenut m`ghandux jinzamm responsabbli ghal l-ebda spejjez 
gudizzjarji konnessi ma` dan il-kaz.  
 
 
 Semghet ix-xhieda u rat il-provi l-ohra li tressqu  fil-kors tal-kawza. 
 
 
 
Rat illi l-kawza thalliet ghas-sentenza ghal-lum. 
 
 
Rat in-noti ta` osservazzjonijiet li pprezentaw il- partijiet. 
 
 
Semghet is-sottomissjonijiet tal-ahhar bil-fomm li ghamlu d-difensuri 
tal-partijiet fl-udejnza tat-12 ta` Lulju 2018. 
 
 
Rat l-atti l-ohra tal-kawza. 
   
 21  
 
II. Fatti  
 
 
Balticmax Holding Company Limited (BHC ) hija kumpannija li kienet 
registrata Malta fis-26 ta` Mejju 2015 minn Pal Leo  Eckbo (Eckbo) .  L-ghan 
principali taghha huwa dak li tixtri u tikri bastim enti tramite kumpanniji 
sussidjarji.   Eckbo kien ukoll l-uniku azzjonista tal-kumpannija  Marsoft 
International A /S ( Marsoft ), li hija n-Norvegja.  Marsoft toffri servizzi ta`  
konsulenza finanzjarja fil-qasam marittimu b`attenz joni partikolari ghal 
ristrutturar ta` flottot ta` bastimenti li jkunu gh addejjin minn diffikultajiet 
finanzjarji.  Marsoft titmexxa minn Arlie Sterling (Sterling) . Vroon 
Containers B.V. ( Vroon ) hija kumpannija registrata l-Olanda u topera l-
bastimenti.  Titmexxa minn Herman Marks (Marks ).  Balticmax Acquisition 
Corporation One Ltd (AC1)  hija kumpannija registrata Malta u  hija socjeta` 
sussidjarja ta` BHC.  AC1 ghandha diversi  sussidja rji li huma sidien ta`  
bastimenti.  BHC hija l-unika azzjonista ta` AC1. 
 
 
Kien Gunju 2015 meta AC1 ghamlet ftehim ta` self ma l-bank 
Germaniz, Bremer Landesbank ( BLB ).  Skont il-ftehim, AC1 setghet titlob 
self fl-ammont massimu ta` US$ 444 miljun sabiex ti ffinanzja l-akkwist ta` 
32 –il bastiment u tassikura likwidita` sabiex tmex xi n-negozju taghha.  Dan 
il-ftehim kien jitlob impenn min-naha ta` min kien qed jissellef li jkun incease 
in capital apparti pattijiet ohra.  Marsoft hejjiet Debt Progr amme. Vroon 
accettat li tikkopera ma` Marsoft fir-rigward tal-a kkwist, tmexxija u thaddim 
ta` flotta ta` 32 bastiment tal-containers fejn BHC  kienet the beneficial 
owner.  Fl-14 ta` Awissu 2015, Marsoft u Vroon akkwistaw fi  kwoti ta` 50% 
kull wahda ta` BHC.  Marsoft gabet maghha l-progett  waqt illi Vroon 
pprovdiet lil BHC b` Loan Notes  u cioe b` Senior Loan  fl-ammont ta` US$ 10.5 
miljun u Bridge Financing fl-ammont ta` US$ 10.5 miljun, bil- Bridge Loan  li 
kellu jigi rifuz ghas-saldu sal-ahhar ta` Dicembru tal-2015 (ara : Sec 2.2 tal-
BHC Cooperation Agreement).  Dan is-self kellu jint uza esklussivament minn 
AC1 ghall-akkwist tal-vapuri.  Kollox kien rifless fis-Senior Bridge Loan Note 
u s-Senior Loan Note tas-6 ta` Ottubru 2015.  Fis-17 ta` Awissu 2015, il-
membri ta` BHC iffirmaw il-Memorandum and Articles of Association 
(M&A) .   
 
 
L-Art 60 tal-M&A intitolat “ Reserved Matters ” li jaqra hekk :  
   
 22  
“Any of the following actions shall require the 
endorsement of at least two-thirds (2/3) majority o f 
the members of the Board of Directors: 
 
 … 
 
ii. Any increase or reduction in the authorized or 
issued share capital of the Company; 
 
… 
 
vii. Any amendment of the Articles of Association 
of the Company;  
 
… 
 
For the avoidance of doubt, notwithstanding the fac t 
that the Board of Directors has approved any of the  
actions mentioned in Clause 60 (i), (ii), (vii), (v iii), 
(xi), or (xii) any such decision by the Board of 
Directors must be approved by the General Meeting o f 
the Company. ” 
 
Fis-6 ta` Ottubru 2015, sar il-BHC Co-operation Agr eement (Co-
operation Agreement ) biex jirregola r-relazzjoni ta` bejn Marsoft, Vro on u 
BHC dwar it-tmexxija ta` BHC, ta` AC1 u tas-sussidj arji.   
 
 
Ghal dak illi ghandu x`jaqsam mal-amministrazzjoni,  b`referenza 
partikolari ghal x`wassal ghall-kawza tal-lum, il-k lawsola 4 tal-Co-operation 
Agreement taqra: 
 
…  
 
The Parties agree that the overall strategic direct ion of the Business of 
BHC and its subsidiaries shall be determined by the  Parties unanimously in 
a general meeting of the shareholders.  Such strate gic matters shall include  
the following : 
 
 … 
   
 23  
 2. Any increase or reduction in the authorised or issued share 
capital of the Company; 
 
 … 
 
 9. Any alteration to or amendment of the by-laws o f the Company or 
AC1, except as foreseen in clause 5.3; 
 
 …  
 
 11. The acquisition (by subscription or transfer) or the disposal of or 
granting of any option, charge or other encumbrance  over shares or securities 
of any company . 
 
 
Kien patwit ukoll illi BHC kellha thallas lura lill -Vroon l-ammont 
misluf.  Marsoft obbligat ruhha illi jekk BHC ma th allasx skont dak patwit  
fil-Loan Notes  u/jew dak patwit fil-Co-operation Agreement, allura M arsoft 
kellha taghmel tajjeb hi.  Clause 2.4 tal-Co-operat ion Agreement tghid :- 
 
“1. Marsoft and/or nomine will subscribe to and pay on 31 
December 2015 to up to USD 2,100,000 of the Profit Participation Loan Notes.  
These funds to be used solely to reduce Vroon`s out standing under the Vroon 
Bridge Financing. 
 
2. Marsoft will transfer no later than 6 January 20 16 shares in 
BHC to Vroon in compensation.  If there is a shortf all relative to the USD 0 
target then Marsoft and Vroon will split the differ ence of the shortfall and 
Marsoft will transfer a percentage of shares in BHC  equal to its portion of the 
shortfall, divided by USD 10,500,000 and multiplied  by 10% of the Shares. ” 
 
 
Skont Clause 5.1 tal-Co-operation Agreement, il-Bor d tad-Diretturi : 
 
“… shall at all times consist of up to 3 board members  
or such other number to be determined with the 
unanimous consent of the Parties.  Vroon and Marsof t 
are each entitled to nominate and have elected one 
member to the board.  The third member of the Board  
will be nominated by both Parties unanimously. 
   
 24 Except as above provided, no person shall be electe d 
as a Director of the Company to fill any vacancy 
among the Directors and neither the Parties not the  
continuing Directors shall have power to fill any s uch 
vacancy .” 
 
 
Eckbo rrizenja minn direttur ta` BHC, u kienu mahtu ra Sterling u 
Marks bhala diretturi, tal-ewwel appuntat minn Mars oft u l-iehor minn 
Vroon.  Bhala tielet direttur, inhatar Dr Stanley P ortelli fit-18 ta` Awissu 
2015.  Dr Portelli rrizenja minn direttur b`effett mit-28 ta` Dicembru 2015.  U 
ma kienx sostitwit mill-azzjonisti, lanqas b`talba skont l-Art 136(7) tal-Kap 
386. 
 
 
Gara li n-negozju ma marx kif kien ippjanat tant il li BHC sabet ruhha 
f`diffikultajiet biex tkattar  in-negozju u d-dhul taghha.  Sal-31 ta` Dicembru 
2015, id-data sa meta kellha tkun rifuza l- Bridge Loan,  BHC kien ghad 
jonqosha trodd madwar US$ 5.2 miljun.  Xejn ma thal las mill-ammont ta` 
US$ 10.5 miljun li kienu mislufa fis- Senior  Loan Note .  Ghalhekk Marsoft 
kellha taderixxi ma` dak li kien pattwit fis-sens i lli kellha tislef l-ammont ta` 
US$ 2.1 miljun lil BHC sabiex din tkun parti mill-p endenza tal- Bridge Loan .  
Inoltre skont Clause 2 tal-Co-operation Agreement, Marsoft kellha  
tittrasferixxi favur Vroon 2.49% ta` l-ishma li kel lha fil-BHC.  B`dan it-
trasferiment ta` ishma, Vroon kien ser ikollha tota l ta` 52.49%. Marsoft 
baqghet inadempjenti bil-konsegwenza li stagna n-ne gozju ta` BHC.  B`zewg 
diretturi biss fil-bord, u b`sitwazzjoni ta` konfli tt car bejn l-azzjonisti, ma 
setghet tittiehed ebda decizjoni.  Dan l-istat ta` fatt wassal biex sar ftehim 
fis-27 ta` Jannar 2016 bejn BHC, Vroon u AC1 dwar i r-rahan favur Vroon ta` 
15,737,500 cumulative redeemable preference shares  ta` BHC.  Dan il-ftehim 
kien iffirmat minn Sterling u Marks u kien debitame nt registrat fir-Registru 
tal-Kumpanniji ta` Malta.  Id- deadlock bejn l-azzjonisti wassal ghall-
presentata ta` proceduri arbitrali fin-Norvegja u k awzi Malta. 
 
 
Ghar-rigward tal-kawzi li saru Malta, jirrizulta li  fil-kors tal-kawza fl-
ismijiet Av Jonathan Abela Fiorentino noe vs Vroon Container s B.V. et. (Rik. 
Nru. 304/2016 JZM) li kienet deciza minn din il-Qorti kif presjeduta f it-30 
ta` Ottubru 2018 inghatat ordni interim fit-2 ta` Settembru 2016 bil-hatra ta` 
l-Av. Dr. Richard Galea Debono bhala t-tielet diret tur.  Tliet xhur Dr Galea 
Debono kellu jirrizenja minn direttur minhabba l-am bjent konflittwali qawwi 
   
 25 li kien hemm bejn Sterling u Marks.  Dak li huwa ri levanti minn dik il-kawza 
ghall-fini tal-kawza odjerna huwa l-fatt illi wara dik ir-rizenja, BHC rega` 
giet b`zewg diretturi li ma jaqblu dwar xejn.  Hemm  ukoll pendenti quddiem 
din il-Qorti kif presjeduta kawza ghax-xoljiment u stralc ta` BHC promossa 
minn Vroon fl-ismijiet Avv. Jean-Pie Gauci-Maistre noe vs Balticmax Holdin g 
Company Limited  (Rik. Nru 1150/17 JZM) .  
 
 
In kwantu ghall-proceduri legali li saru n-Norvegja , hemm ordni datat 
7 ta` Jannar 2016 ghall-iffrizar ta` assi ta` Marso ft ghall-ammont ta` US$ 2.1 
miljun Dollaru, oltre l-hlas tal-ispejjez legali.  Fil-21 ta` Frar 2017, Arbitru 
gewwa Oslo ta decizjoni fejn laqa` talba ta` Vroon ghall-kundanna ta`  
Marsoft ghall-hlas ta` US$ 2.1 miljun.  Dan il-hlas  kellu jsir fi zmien 14-il 
jum mid-data tad-decizjoni.  Kellhom jithallsu wkol l l-interessi sad-data tal-
pagament effettiv, kif ukoll kellu jsir it-trasferi ment ta` 2.49% tal-ishma ta` 
Marsoft go BHC fi zmien 14-il gurnata mid-data tad- decizjoni.  Marsoft 
kienet ordnata wkoll sabiex thallas l-ispejjez lega li kollha.  Minkejja d-
decizjoni, Marsoft baqghet inadempjenti.  Kien hemm  decizjoni ohra tal-
Arbitru gewwa Oslo li nghatat fil-15 ta` Mejju 2017  fejn Vroon kienet 
kanonizzata bhala kreditrici ta` BHC fl-ammont ta` US$ 15,225,000, bl-
interessi sad-data tal-hlas effettiv kif ukoll l-is pejjez legali.  Il-hlas kellu jsir 
fi zmien hmistax 15-il gurnata mid-data tad-decizjo ni.  Billi d-decizjoni kienet 
giet registrata mac-Centru Malti tal-Arbitragg, id- decizjoni llum 
tikkostitwixxi titolu ezekuttiv gewwa Malta. 
 
 
Ikompli jinghad illi b`ittra ufficjali tat-23 ta` M ejju 2017, Vroon avzat 
formalment lil BCH u lil AC1 illi ladarba BCH baqgh et inadempjenti fl-
obbligi taghha skont il- Pledge Agreement  tas-27 ta` Jannar 2016, u billi 
baqghet ma hallsitx lil Vroon l-ammonti dovuti, Vro on kienet ser tghaddi 
sabiex tenforza d-drittijiet taghha skont il- Pledge Agreement . 
  
 
III. Il-grajjiet ta` qabel il-kawza tal-lum  
 
 
 Din hija rassenja tal-grajjiet f`ordni kronologiku li wasslu ghall-kawza 
tal-lum :- 
 
 
   
 26 • 21 ta` Marzu 2017  – ittra li baghat Sterling lill-Bord tad-Diretturi  ta` 
AC1 fejn esprima t-thassib tieghu illi l-kumpannija  kienet fi stat illi 
ma tistax thallas id-djun taghha jew inkella li kie net tinsab fi stat 
imminenti fejn ma tkunx tista` aktar thallas id-dju n taghha.  Huwa 
ghalhekk stieden il-Bord tad-Diretturi sabiex jiddi skutu s-sitwazzjoni 
finanzjarja tal-kumpannija fil-laqgha tal-Bord ta` wara, u wissa illi 
jekk il-Bord ma kienx ser jiehu l-kwistjoni bis-ser jeta` huwa kien ser 
jaghmel dak kollu fil-poter tieghu sabiex ihares l- interessi tal-
kredituri, inkluz ukoll illi jibda proceduri ghal x oljiment u stralc. (fol. 
912) 
 
 
• 3 ta` April 2017  – e-mail ta` Silke Elfert ghal BLB mibghuta lil 
Sterling u Marks fejn tressqu diversi proposti sabi ex ikun hemm aktar 
likwidita` fl-AC1. (fol. 453) 
 
 
• 4 ta` April 2017  – e-mail ta` Christopher Savoye, rapprezentat lega li u 
impjegat ta` Vroon, mibghuta lil Sterling u Marks f ejn b`referenza 
ghall-e-mail ta` Silke Elfert ( supra ) ressaq il-proposti ta` Vroon.  Il-
proposti kienu dawn :- 
 
1.  BHC to sell and transfer all their ordinary shares in AC1 at par 
(2000 at USD 1,-) to VCBV and VCBV to provide a loa n to AC1 
amounting to USD 2mio to AC1 (on terms mentioned in  Silke`s 
message); or 
 
2.  AC1 to issue 50,000 new ordinary shares of USD 1 to  VCBV against 
payment of USD 50K by VCBV; and VCBV to provide a l oan to AC1 
amounting to USD 1.95mio (on terms mentioned in Sil ke`s 
message); or 
 
3.  BHC to sell and transfer all their ordinary shares in AC1 at par 
(2000 at USD 1,-) to VCBV; and AC1 to issue 50,000 new ordinary 
shares of USD 1 to VCBV against payment of USD 50K by VCBV; 
and VCBV to provide a loan to AC1 amounting to USD 1.95mio (on 
terms mentioned in Silke`s message) (fol. 455)  
 
 
   
 27 • 6 ta` April 2017  : saret laqgha tal-Bord tad-Diretturi ta` AC1 fejn  
tressqu proposti bil-ghan illi tinstab soluzzjoni g has-sitwazzjoni 
finanzjarja ta` BHC.  Kienet diskussa l-proposta ta ` Sterling kif 
dedotta fl-ittra tieghu tal-21 ta` Marzu 2017.  Mar ks ma accettax il-
proposta.  Il-Bord irrigetta l-proposta ta` Sterlin g.  Imbaghad Marks 
tkellem dwar proposti ta` finanzjament ulterjuri, p recizament dik ta` 
Silke Elfert ( supra ), u l-proposti ta` Vroon skont l-email ta` Christo phe 
Savoye ( supra ).  Sterling rrigetta l-proposta ta` Marks.  Billi ma kienx 
hemm qbil bejn id-diretturi, il-laqgha ghalqet bla ma ttiehdet ebda 
decizjoni dwar jekk il-proposta ta` Marks kellhiex tkun skartata jew 
inkella kellhiex tigi esplorata ulterjorment. (fol.  449 – 452) 
 
 
• 10 ta` April 2017  – kienet prezentata fir-Registru tal-Kumpanniji 
rizoluzzjoni datata 7 ta` April 2017 iffirmata minn  Marks ghan-nom 
ta` BHC bhala azzjonista ta` AC1 ghall-hrug ta` 50, 000–il sehem 
ordinarju gdid f`AC1 favur Vroon.  L-istess rizoluz zjoni approvat is-
sostituzzjoni tal-M&A ta` AC1 b`iehor gdid.  L-M&A il-gdid kien 
iffirmat minn Marks u minn Christopher Savoye.  Fis -7 ta` April 2017 
Marks hareg bil-firma tieghu prokura favur Christop her Savoye sabiex 
jagixxi bhala mandatarju specjali ta` Vroon. 
 
 
• 10 ta` April 2017  – kienet prezentata fir-Registru tal-Kumpanniji 
Form T, li ggib il-firma ta` Marks, li biha nghata avviz dwar 
trasferiment ta` 2000 –il sehem b`valur ta` US$1 ku ll wiehed li BHC 
kellha fl-AC1 favur Vroon b`effett mis-7 ta` April 2017 . (fol. 45) 
 
 
• 10 ta` April 2017  – kienet prezentata fir-Registru tal-Kumpanniji 
Form H li biha nghata avviz dwar il-hrug ta` 50,000  –il sehem 
ordinarju gdid fl-AC1 favur Vroon b`effett mis-7 ta ` April 2017 . (fol. 68, 
69).   
 
 
• 10 ta` April 2017  – kienet prezentata wkoll fir-Registru tal-
Kumpanniji Form K li biha nghata avviz tal-hatra ta ` Stefan Quist, 
impjegat ta` Vroon, bhala direttur u Segretarju ta`  AC1.  B`hekk AC1 
issa kellha tlett diretturi : Sterling, Marks u Qui st.  Gara li r-
   
 28 rapprezentanti ta` Vroon kisbu l-maggoranza fil-Bor d tad-Diretturi.  
Din il-hatra saret b`effett mis-7 ta` April 2017 . (fol. 70) 
 
 
• 10 ta` April 2017  – kienet  ukoll prezentata Form I (1) li biha r-
Registratur tal-Kumpanniji kien avzat illi AC1 ma b aqghetx aktar 
single member company . (fol. 71) 
 
 
• 17 ta` April 2017  – e-mail minn Camilleri Preziosi fejn ghaddewa 
credit advices lil Sterling u Marks dwar l-akkwist ta` 2000 ordinary 
shares go BHC u 50,000 ordinary shares go AC1 minn Vroon. (fol. 460) 
 
 
• 17 ta` April 2017 –  e-mail lill-Av. Dr Henri Mizzi ghal Camilleri 
Preziosi fejn kien mgharraf minn Sterling illi la l -Bord ta` BHC u 
lanqas dak ta` AC1 ma kien awtorizza ebda bejgh, xi ri jew hrug ta` 
ishma u talab ghalhekk illi t-trasferiment jitwaqqa f. (fol. 925) 
 
 
• 29 ta` April 2017 – ittra tal-Av. Dr. Richard Camilleri ghal Sterling l il 
Marks fejn Marks kien intimat biex jieqaf u jiddezi sti mill-agir 
arbitrarju, abbuziv u llegali tieghu.  Kien infurma t illi Sterling kien 
intavola procedure legali.  (fol. 927)  
 
 
• 1 ta` Mejju 2017  – e-mail minn Marks lill-Av. Dr. Jonathan Abela 
Fiorentino fejn Marks irribatta l-kontenut tal-ittr a. 
 
 
• 9 ta` Mejju 2017  – e-mail ta` Marks lil Sterling u lil Anke Strubin g, 
rapprezentant ta` BLB, fejn spjega illi: 
 
“Following the last shareholders meeting of AC1, I 
decided it was (and is) in the interest of AC1 and its 
key stakeholders, to adopt various resolutions and 
actions that have resulted in BHC selling its ordin ary 
shares and AC1 increasing its ordinary issued share  
capital.  Also another director has been appointed to 
the Board of AC1.  These actions have been executed  
   
 29 and formalised in Malta.  In addition it is expecte d 
that Vroon Containers will exercise its pledge righ ts 
on about 15 million cum pref shares in AC1. ” (fol. 
465) 
 
 
• 10 ta` Mejju 2017  – bi twegiba ghall-e-mail ta` Sterling 
tal-10 ta` Mejju 2017, fejn talab minghand l-Av Dr Henri 
Mizzi spjegazzjoni tal-email ta` Marks tad-9 ta` Me jju 2017, 
Av Dr Henri Mizzi wiegeb illi hu ma kienx involut f `dak illi 
tkellem dwaru Marks.   (fol. 464 et seq. ) 
 
 
IV. Analizi  
 
 
Mix-xiehda ta` Sterling u Marks jirrizulta kjaramen t id-disgwid serju 
ta` bejniethom li skonfina fl-animosita`.  Dan l-is tat ta` fatt gab mieghu 
sitwazzjoni fejn ma setghux jittiehdu decizjonijiet  fil-kumpannija ghaliex dak 
li jipproponi wiehed ikun oppost mill-iehor.  Kien hemm tentattiv li jinhatar 
it-tielet direttur izda it- tug of war  ta` bejn Sterling u Marks ghamlet mill-
hatra nsuccess ghaliex kull wiehed minflok jara l-i nteressi ta` BHC beda jara 
l-interess tal-azzjonisti li minnhom kienu mahtura fil-bord. 
 
 
Sterling u Marks jixhtu akkuzi kontra xulxin, kif h uwa bil-wisq 
evidenti mix-xiehda taghhom.  Sterling jallega illi  Marks ha bosta 
decizjonijiet u inizjattivi unilaterlament bl-iskop  illi ghal Vroon jiehu kontroll 
decisiv ta` BHC u ta` AC1 u cahhad lil Marsoft mill i tiehu beneficcji minn 
BHC jew AC1.  Il-Qorti mhijiex sejra tidhol fil-mer tu ta` l-allegazzjonijiet 
kollha li ghamel Sterling billi whud imorru oltre l -merdtu ta` din il-kawza u 
ghalhekk sejra tillimita ruhha boss ghal dawn rilev anti ghall-provediment 
odjern. 
 
 
Dwar il-qaghda finanzjarja difficli ta` BHC u ta` A C1, Sterling fisser 
illi huwa ma kellu l-ebda oggezzjoni ghall-fatt ill i Vroon taghmel aktar 
kapital disponibbli.  L-oggezzjoni tieghu ghall-pro posta ta` Marks kienet 
ibbazata biss fuq il-fatt illi kif formolata kienet  intiza sabiex taghti vantagg 
qawwi lil Vroon a skapitu ta` Marsoft.  Sterling es prima ruhu wkoll fis-sens 
illi rinfaccjat b`din is-sitwazzjoni il-bank ma kel lu ebda obbligu illi jibqa` 
   
 30 jaghmel disponibbli aktar kapital.  Min-naha tieghu  Marks oggezzjona ghall-
proposta ta` Sterling illi jigu nkarikati esperti i ndipendenti sabiex 
jirrapportaw lura dwar il-qaghda ta` AC1 u jressqu pjanijiet dwar l-ahjar 
alternattiva ghal AC1. 
 
 
Is-sitwazzjoni pprecipitat hesrem wara l-laqgha tal -Bord tas--6 ta` 
April 2017 meta minghajr l-approvazzjoni tal-Bord u  minghajr pre-avviz ta` 
xejn, Marks awtorizza l-bejgh tal-ishma u t-tibdil l-iehor li gie fis-sehh fis-7 
ta` April 2017.  Malli Sterling sar jaf b`dan, huwa  talab spjegazzjoni.  Marks 
ikkonferma kull ma kien ghamel.  Sterling hass illi  ma kienx fadal triq ohra 
ghajr illi jintavola d-debiti proceduri sabiex jitt utela l-interessi ta` Marsoft.  
Skont Sterling, l-atti ta` Marks mertu tal-kawza od jerna twettqu ad insaputa 
tieghu jew tal-Bord.  Ebda laqgha ma approvat dawk l-atti u kien biss 
b`kumbinazzjoni illi Sterling intebah x`kien ghadde j.  In segwitu Sterling 
talab u ottjena l-hrug ta` mandat ta` inibizzjoni l i ppreceda l-kawza. 
 
 
Sterling fisser illi l-atti in kwistjoni wasslu gha s-sitwazzjoni fejn Vroon 
kisbet il-kontroll shih (i.e. 100%) ta` AC1 waqt il li Marsoft m`ghandha ebda 
kontroll hlief fuq in- non-voting preference shares .  Sterling ighid illi l-valur 
reali tal-flotta proprjeta` ta` AC1 imur oltre l- book value.   Tenna wkoll illi l-
valur tal-flotta zdied u allura mhux ser ikun hemm diffikultajiet biex id-dejn 
jigi saldat. 
 
 
Min-naha tieghu, Marks jishaq illi dak kollu li sar  min-naha tieghu 
kien fl-ahjar interess tal-kumpannija.  Jixhet il-h tija fuq Sterling billi 
akkuzah illi xekkel l-operazzjonijiet tal-kumpannij a.  Meta xehdu kemm 
Marks kif ukoll Stefan Quist fissru illi effettivam ent id-dejn li BHC ghandha 
ma` Vroon huwa ferm akbar mill-valur tal-ishma li B HC ghandha fl-AC1. 
 
 
Fid-deposizzjoni tieghu, Marks jikkonferma illi kie n hu illi ttrasferixxa 
favur Vroon l-ishma kollha li BHC kellha f`AC1.  Ja ccetta illi qabel sar it-
trasferiment, la talab l-awtorizzazzjoni tal-Bord t a` BHC u lanqas dik tal-
azzjonisti.  Jaccetta li kien hu li appunta lil Ste fan Quist bhala t-tielet 
direttur.  Ir-ragunijiet tieghu kienu dawn :- 
 
“In the end of February we won the arbitration gains t 
Marsoft and Marsoft has a number of obligations, 
   
 31 including transferring BHC`s shares to Vroon.  On 
the 7 th  April we are having an AC1 shareholders` 
meeting.  The AC1 shareholders meeting, in the 
shareholders` meeting of AC1 there were a number of  
items on the agenda, including a resolution or 
proposal by Arlie Sterling to file for liquidation of 
AC1, 7 th  April.  At that pont in time there were for two 
months written offers from BLB and Vroon 
Containers to rescue, to continue the operation of AC1 
for an interim solution by injecting 4,000,000 Doll ars 
of fresh money into AC1 and to continue the 
operations.  Also, the arbitration between Vroon 
Containers and BHC had already taken place, 
although there was not a formal arbitration award a t 
this date.  Arlie filed for dissolution and he deni ed in 
that meeting all the proposals to accept the propos als 
of Vroon Containers and of the bank to continue the  
operations of AC1, and then there was not much 
alternatives in my opinion to secure the best inter est 
of AC1 than selling the ordinary shares of AC1, 
exercising the share pledge by Vroon Contianers and  
then trying to rescue or buy some time for AC1 to 
continue, and that`s what I did.  And also I wrote to 
Arlie following that meeting that I would take cert ain 
measures to protect the interst of the stakeholders  in 
AC1, and this is the consequence of that .” (fol. 1495) 
 
 
Jirrizulta illi Vroon hallset is-somma ta` US$ 2000  ghall-valur 
nominali tal-ishma.  L-ishma trasferiti favur Vroon  kienu dawk biss li 
kellhom voting rights.  Il-konsegwenza ta` l-akkwisti kien :- 
 
“That the voting control of the shares would come 
with Vroon Containers and be exercised with a share  
pledge, also a direct shareholder of 15,200,000 or 
15,500,000.  I don`t recall exactly, but over 15,00 0,000 
Dollars of shares .” (fol. 1496) 
 
 
Marks jikkonferma b`dak it-trasferimenta Marsoft ti lfet kwalsiasi tip 
ta` kontroll illi seta` kellha fuq AC1. 
   
 32  
 
Jidher car illi r-raguni li skattat id-decizjoni ta ` Marks kien ir-rifjut ta`  
Sterling li jaccetta l-proposti ta` BLB u Vroon dwa r finanzjament gdid, kif 
ukoll il-proceduri beda Sterling ghax-xoljiment u s tralc.  Marks kien ukoll 
motivat mill-fatt illi l-esitu tal-arbitragg ma kie nx gie rispettat minn Marsoft 
u minn BHC.  Marks ighid illi huwa ghazel illi “ I took the rope into my hands ” 
u “… I took control of the situation ” (fol. 1499) 
 
 
Irrizulta wkoll illi nonostante l-fatt illi sar it- trasferiment tal-ishma, 
Marks ma jiftakarx jekk iffirmax ukoll l- instrument of transfer .  Inoltre, waqt 
illi t-trasferiment tal-ishma sehh b`effett mis-7 t a` April 2017, effettivament  
it-trasferiment sehh qabel ma Vroon hallset il-valu r tal-ishma. Marks insista 
illi l-flus kienu trasferiti fis-7 ta` April 2017 p ero` jista` jaghti l-kaz illi l-
pagament dam ftit granet sakemm ghadda fl-10 ta` Ap ril 2017.   
 
Mistoqsi jekk kienx ghadda ghadda d-dokumenti jew k ienx ta avviz 
dwar l-ishma in kwistjoni, Marks wiegeb illi ma jif takarx u li ghalkemm kien 
hu li ffirma d-dokumenti, ma kienx hu li ha hsieb j ghaddi l-formoli relattivi.  
Dwar il-Form T, iddikjara li l-ishma gew trasferiti  b`effett mis-7 ta` April 
2017 u li t-trasferiment kien debitament registrat fis-7 ta` April 2017.  Dr 
Henri Mizzi, corporate advisor  ta` BHC, stqarr illi d-dokumenti ma waslux 
ghandu u hu ma kienx konsultat dwar li sar.  Lanqas  ma jirrizulta li l-atti 
qatt gew entrati fir-registri ta` BHC. 
 
 
V.  L-ewwel (1) eccezzjoni preliminari  
 
 
 Il-konvenuti qeghdin jilqghu in linea preliminari  ghall-azzjoni 
attrici bl-eccezzjoni tal-gurisdizzjoni abbazi tal- BHC Co-operation 
Agreement.  Il-konvenuti jikkontendu li l-ftehim ji ssupera kull disposizzjoni 
ohra.  Jirreferu ghall-Artikoli 19 u 20 tal-ftehim :- 
 
19. Governing Law  
 
This agreement and all matters related to this 
Agreement shall be governed by and construed 
in accordance with Norwegian law without 
giving effect to any choice or conflict of law 
   
 33 provision or rule (whether of Norway or any 
other jurisdiction) that would cause the 
application of the laws of any other 
jurisdiction. 
 
20. Dispute Resolution  
 
Any dispute that may arise from this 
Agreement shall be settled by arbitration in 
Oslo, in English, and in accordance with the 
Norwegian arbitration act of 14 May 2004 no. 
25.  The Parties undertake and agree that all 
arbitral proceedings will be kept striclty 
confidential. 
 
 
 Il-konvenuti jghidu li din il-qorti m`ghandhiex gu risdizzjoni li tittratta 
u tiddeciedi l-kawza. 
 
  
L-atturi jikkontestaw il-fondatezza tal-eccezzjoni billi jghidu illi l-
Artikolu 20 tal-BHC Co-operation Agreement ma jappl ikax ghaliex il-qrati  
Maltin ghandhom gurisdizzjoni li jiddeciedu din il- vertenza a bazi tad-dispost 
tal-Artikolu 24(2) u (3), u l-Artikolu 25 (4) tar-R egolament Nru  1215 /2012 
tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tat-12 ta` Dice mbru 2012 dwar il-
gurisdizzjoni u r-rikonoxximent u l-ezekuzzjoni ta`  sentenzi fi kwistjonijiet 
civili u kummercjali  (`ir-Regolament` ) maghruf ahjar bhala l-` Brussels  
recast `.  L-atturi jsostni l-argument taghhom illi din il -qorti ghandha 
gurisdizzjoni abbazi tal-Artikolu 22(2) u (3) u l-A rtikolu 23(5) tal-Konvenzjoni 
dwar il-gurisdizzjoni u r-rikonoxximent u l-ezekuzz joni ta` sentenzi fi 
kwistjonijiet civili u kummercjali (OJ L 331 /3 tal-21 ta` Dicembru 2017), 
maghrufa ahjar bhala l -Konvenzjoni ta` Lugano  (`il-Konvenzjoni` ). 
 
  
1. Il-gurisdizzjoni ta` dawn il-Qrati  
  
 
Jirrizulta li l-konsiderazzjoni ta` din l-eccezzjon i ma kenitx trattata 
b`mod distint u distakkat mill-eccezzjonijiet fil-m ertu.   
 
 
   
 34 Ma kienx hemm insistenza da parti tal-konvenuti li l-Qorti tittratta l-
eccezzjoni tal-gurisdizzjoni in limine litis  qabel tisma` l-provi dwar il-mertu.   
 
 
Aktar minn hekk, il-konvenuti hallew lill-atturi jr essqu l-provi 
taghhom dwar il-mertu  liberament imbaghad ressqu l -provi taghhom dwar 
il-mertu.   
 
 
Li kieku l-eccezzjoni kienet trattata qabel il-mert u, u li kieku kienet 
deciza favur il-konvenuti, il-kawza kienet tieqaf h emm.   
 
 
Mill-mod kif svolga l-iter tal-kawza, hija l-fehma konsiderata ta` din il-
Qorti illi bil-mod kif l-konvenuti ttrattaw l-eccez zjoni flimkien mal-mertu, 
huma accettaw  il-gurisdizzjoni ta` din il-Qorti. 
 
 
Dan huwa l-ispirtu tal- Artikolu 26(1)  tar-Regolament  Nru 
1215 /2012 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tat-12 ta`  Dicembru 
2012 dwar il-gurisdizzjoni u r-rikonoxximent u l-ez ekuzzjoni ta` 
sentenzi fi kwistjonijiet civili u kummercjali illi jaqra : 
 
Apparti mill-gurisdizzjoni li tohrog minn 
dispozizzjonijiet ohra ta` dan ir-Regolament, qorti  ta` 
Stat Membru fejn il-konvenut ikun deher ghandha 
jkollha l-gurisdizzjoni. Din ir-regola m`ghandhiex 
tapplika meta d-dehra kienet saret biex tkun 
ikkontestata l-gurisdizzjoni, jew meta qorti ohra 
jkollha gurisdizzjoni eskluziva bis-sahha tal-Artik olu 
24 . 
  
 
Dan premess, il-Qorti tirrileva illi m`ghandhiex gh alfejn tinoltra ruhha 
fi studju approfondit tal-kwistjoni tal-gurisdizzjo ni.   
 
 
Din hija l-linja traccjata mill-Qorti tal-Gustizzja  tal-Unjoni Ewropeja 
(`CJEU`)   
 
 
   
 35 Il-Qorti tirreferi ghad-decizjoni li tat il-CJEU fi s-16 ta` Gunju 2016 fil-
kaz ta` Universal Music International Holding BV v Michael Tétreault 
Schilling and Others , fejn inghad :- 
 45. Although the national court seised is not oblig ed, 
if the defendant contests the applicant`s claims, 
to conduct a comprehensive taking of evidence at 
the stage of determining jurisdiction, the Court 
has held that both the objective of the sound 
administration of justice, which underlies 
Regulation No 44/2001, and respect for the 
independence of the national court in the 
exercise of its functions require the national 
court seised to be able to examine its 
international jurisdiction in the light of all the 
information available to it, including, where 
appropriate, the defendant`s arguments 
(judgement of 28 January 2015 in Kolassa, 
C-375/13, EU:C:2015:37, paragraph 64). 
46.     On the basis of the foregoing, the answer t o the 
third question asked is that, in the context of the  
determination of jurisdiction under Regulation 
No 44/2001, the court seised must assess all the 
evidence available to it, including, where 
appropriate, the arguments put forward by the 
defendant . 
  
2. L-Art 741 u 742 tal-Kap 12  
 
 
Fin-noti ta` sottomissjonijiet taghhom, il-partijie t jaghmlu argumenti 
taghhom dwar l-applikazzjoni tar-Regolament ( supra ) u ta` l-Konvenzjoni 
(supra ) in relazzjoni mad-disposizzjonijiet tal-Kap 12. 
 
 
L-Art 741(1)(a) tal-Kap 12  jiddisponi illi l-eccezzjoni tal-inkompetenza 
tal-qorti tista` tinghata meta l-kawza ma tkunx ta`  gurisdizzjoni tal-qrati 
ta` Malta.  
 
   
 36  
Mill- Art 742 tal-Kap 12 , ghall-fini tal-eccezzjoni kif prospettata, 
ighodd dan li gej :- 
 
(1)  Bla hsara ta` fejn il-ligi tiddisponi espressament 
xort`ohra, il-Qrati Civili ta` Malta minghajr ebda 
distinzjoni jew privilegg, ghandhom gurisdizzjoni 
biex jisimghu u jiddeciedu l-kawzi kollha li 
jirrigwardaw il-persuni hawn taht imsemmija : 
 
(f) kull  persuna,  ghal  kull  obbligazzjoni  li  tkun 
ikkuntrattat  favur  cittadin  ta`  Malta  jew  per suna  
li tinsab Malta  jew  korp  li  jkollu  personalità   
guridika distinta jew assocjazzjoni ta` persuni 
inkorporati jew li jiffunzjonaw f`Malta,  meta  s-
sentenza  tista`  tkun esegwita f`Malta; 
 
(2) Il-gurisdizzjoni tal-qrati ta` kompetenza civil i 
mhijiex eskluza mill-fatt li qorti barranija tkun 
qeghda tittratta l-istess kawza jew kawza li 
ghandha x`taqsam maghha. Meta qorti barranija 
jkollha gurisdizzjoni konkorrenti, il-qrati jistghu  
fid-diskrezzjoni taghhom, jilliberaw lill-konvenut 
mill-osservanza tal-gudizzju jew iwaqqfu l-
procedimenti f`kaz li l-azzjoni, jekk titkompla 
Malta, tkun vessatorja, oppressiva jew ingusta 
ghall-konvenut.”   
 
(3) Il-gurisdizzjoni  tal-qrati  ta`  kompetenza  c ivili  
mhijiex eskluza mill-fatt li jkun hemm xi ftehim ta ` 
arbitragg bejn il-partijiet, sew jekk il-procedimen ti ta` 
arbitragg ikunu nbdew jew le, f`liema kaz il-qorti,  bla 
hsara ghad-dispozizzjonijiet ta` kull ligi li tirre gola l-
arbitragg, ghandha twaqqaf il-procedimenti 
minghajr pregudizzju ghad-dispozizzjonijiet tas-
subartikolu (4) u ghas-setgha li ghandha l-qorti li  
taghti kull ordni jew direttiva. 
 
 
   
 37  Dan premess, tajjeb jinghad illi BHC u AC1 huma t- tnejn kumpanniji 
kostitwiti u registrati Malta.  Ghandhom l-ufficju registrat taghhom gewwa 
Malta.   
 
 
Fil-kawza tal-lum, BHC hija attrici waqt li AC1 hij a wahda mill-
konvenuti.   
 
 
Il-vertenza tirrigwarda t-trasferiment ta` ishma ta ` kumpannija 
registrata Malta, liema trasferiment kien registrat  fir-Registru tal-
Kumpanniji ta` Malta.  Jekk it-talbiet attrici ikun u milqugha fil-mertu, l-
ezekuzzjoni taghhom se ssir Malta. 
 
Il-Qorti taghmel referenza ghas-sentenza li tat il- Qorti tal-Appell fit-30 
ta` Settembru 2016 fil-kawza fl-ismijiet C. & F. Building Contractors 
Limited v. Siegfried Generics (Malta) Ltd.  
 
 
Inghad hekk mill-Ewwel Qorti :- 
 
Il-klawsola 12 hi pjuttost cara. Mhux biss il-ligi li 
tapplika ghal ftehim (proper law) hi l-ligi Svizzer a, 
hemm stipulat ukoll illi l–gurisdizzjoni (forum) hi  
Zofingen fl-Isvizzera. Ghalkemm din il-parti tal-
klawsola ma ghandhiex dicitura felici pero l-
intenzjoni hi cara mill-istess titolu tal-klawsola li 
jqassam l-artikolu fi tnejn `applicable law and 
language/Court. 
 
Hija sinifikattiva, errudita u studjata s-sentenza ta` 
din il-Qorti diversament preseduta fl-ismijiet 
Middlesea Insurance plc pro et noe vs Bianchi 
& Co. (1916) Ltd (PA 27/02/2014) li dahlet 
funditus fil-principju dwar jekk klawsola 
gurisdizzjonali tizradikax ghal kollox u bla 
eccezzjoni l-gurisdizzjoni ta` dawn il-Qrati. 
 
Bla dubju l-kawza tirrigwarda zewg kumpaniji 
registrati f`Malta rigwardanti kuntratt ta` appalt 
ta` xoghlijiet li kellhom jigu ezegwiti f`Malta u f ejn 
   
 38 it-talba hi ghal hlas ta` bilanc ta` prezz tal-appa lt u 
l-eccezzjoni fil-mertu hi dwar il-kwalita jew nuqqa s 
ta` kwalita fl-esekuzzjoni ta` dan l-appalt. Dawn i l-
fatturi zgur jaghmlu l-gurisdizzjoni tal-Qrati 
Maltin aktar idonea u prattika biex jinstemghu u 
jigu evalwati l-provi senjatament meta fost il-
kondizzjonijet kemm dawk konnessi ma` permessi 
relatati ma` entitajiet Maltin bhal Awtorita tal-
Ippjanar u kif intqal diga l-eccezzjoni ta` nuqqas fl-
esekuzzjoni tal-appalt hi marbuta intrisikament 
mas-sit fejn saru x-xoghljiet, cioe f`Malta. 
 
L-artikolu 742(1) jirradika l-gurisdizzjoni tal-Qra ti 
Maltin bil-fatt li z-zewg kumpaniji jinsabu 
registrati f`Malta u l-post ta` esekuzzjoni hu f`Ma lta 
kif ukoll il-hlas ghal appalt kellu jsir f`Malta. 
 
Il-Qorti tirrefera ghas-segwenti brani mis-sentenza  
msemmija aktar il fuq li ccaraw il-kwistjoni dwar 
eccezzjoni simili. 
 
Izda ghalkemm kien hemm xi ftit kazijiet fejn l-
ezistenza ta` klawsola bhal dik wasslet biex il-Qor ti 
qisitha bhala wahda tassattiva li tnehhi l-
gurisdizzjoni taghha (Ara, per ezempju, Kumm. 
6.10.1959 fil-kawza fl-ismijiet "Lucia noe vs Borg"  
(Kollez.Vol:XLIII.iii.870), il-bicca l-kbira tad-
decizjonijiet huma fis-sens li l-Qrati Maltin 
ghandhom kull jedd li jezercitaw diskrezzjoni jekk 
iwarrbux il-gurisdizzjoni taghhom taht is-sahha ta`  
klawsola bhal dik (Ara, per ezempju, App. Civ. 
9.12.1935 fil-kawza fl-ismijiet "Frendo vs Naudi et  
"(Kollez. Vol:XXIX.i.1317). Dan il-hsieb jaqbel 
sewwa ma` dak li tipprovdi espressament il-ligi 
taghna llum, u l-fehma l-izjed accettata hija li 
klawsola bhal dik ma tistax titfisser bhala li 
tezawtora ghal kollox u minn qabel il-gurisdizzjoni  
tal-Qorti li mqarr tistharreg il-kwistjoni (Ara, pe r 
ezempju, Kumm. 23.6.1994 GMA fil-kawza fl-
ismijiet "John Bonello noe et vs John Ripard noe et " 
(konfermata fl-Appell imma ghal ragunijiet ohrajn 
   
 39 fis-7.10.1997), u fejn, ikkunsidrati ccirkostanzi, 
jkun jidher li l-partijiet tassew riedu din il-
klawsola". (Vol. XXIV P I p 1067); 
  
Fis-sentenza “PL Edoardo Frendo noe -vs- Dottor 
Roberto Naudi et noe”, Appell, 9 ta` Dicembru 1935 
(Vol. XXIX P I p 1317), ittiehdet il-veduta prattik a 
illi : 
 
“allavolja jkun hemm klawsola f`dak is-sens, il-
Qrati taghna ghandhom gurisdizzjoni meta tkun 
kwistjoni ta` atti ta` avarea, jew ta` verifiki ta`  
danni li ma tistax issir hlief hawn Malta; jew 
almenu ma tistax issir quddiem it-tribunal ta` 
barra ahjar, u b`anqas spejjez, u f`anqas zmien 
milli quddiem it-Tribunal taghna.” Ara wkoll 
flistess sens decizjonijiet a Vol. XVII P II p 33; Vol. 
XXIII P III p 484; “Gerald Bartoli noe –vsEmanuel 
Mathioudes noe”, Appell Kummercjali, 29 ta` Lulju 
1970); 
 
Hu minnu li hafna mill-kawzi jirrigwardaw 
kwistjonijiet ta` avarija fil-kamp marittimu izda l -
Qorti tqis li l-principju hu applikabbli b`mod esti z 
ghal kull vertenza. F`dawn ic-cirkostanzi l-Qorti 
tqis li l-fattispecie tal-kaz jitolbu li jkunu l-Qr ati 
Maltin li jiddeciedu l-kwistjoni u salv il-kwistjon i 
tal-`proper law` imsemmija fil-klawsola din il-Qort i 
tqis li ghandha tiddeciedi l-kawza hi.” 
  
 
Il-Qorti tal-Appell ikkonfermat l-impostazzjoni tal -Ewwel Qorti :-  
 
Illi din hi kawza fejn is-socjetà attrici qed titlo b il-
hlas tal-bilanc ta` prezz ta` appalt imwettaq fuq 
inkarigu tal-konvenut. In linea preliminari, is-
socjeta` konvenuta issollevat in-nuqqas ta` 
gurisdizzjoni ta` dawn il-qrati peress illi, skont il-
ftehim li wassal ghall-appalt, il-ftehim hu suggett  
ghal-ligi tal-Isvizzera u “the place of jurisdictio n 
shall be Zofingen (Switzerland)”, L-ewwel Qorti 
   
 40 cahdet din l-eccezzjoni wara li qieset illi l-fatti specie 
tal-kaz “jitolbu li jkunu l-qrati Maltin li jiddeci edu 
l-kwistjoni”. 
 
Is-socjeta` konvenuta appellat mis-sentenza u 
tissottometti li l-ftehim jorbot lill-partijiet – p acta 
sunt servanda – u f`kull kaz, ikun aktar utili li l -
meritu jigi diskuss fil-qorti fi Svizzera. 
 
Din il-Qorti tara li ghandha tikkonferma s-sentenza  
tal-ewwel Qorti. Huwa veru li fil-ftehim bejn il-
partijiet hemm klawzola ta` gurisdizzjoni ta` pajji z 
esteru, u li dawn il-klawzoli ghandhom jinghataw l-
importanza taghhom, pero`, il-qrati taghna dejjem 
zammew id-dritt li jasserixxu l-gurisdizzjoni 
taghhom f`kaz li jqisu li l-qrati Maltin huma l-
forum l-aktar konvenjenti biex jisma` l-kaz. Dan il -
punt gie diskuss u deciz dan l-ahhar mill-
Prim`Awla tal-Qorti Civili fil-kawza “Middlesea 
Insurance plc. v. Bianchi & Co. (1916) Ltd”, deciza  
fis-27 ta` Frar, 2014, fejn saru dawn l-
osservazzjonijiet. 
 
Illi dwar il-kwistjoni tal-inkompetenza tal-Qrati 
ordinarji minhabba deroga mahluqa minn 
klawsola ta` gurisdizzjoni, il-ligi tal-Procedura 
tistabbilixxi li l-fatt wahdu li jkun hemm Qorti oh ra 
barranija li jkollha gurisdizzjoni konkorrenti ma 
jeskludix minn qabel il-gurisdizzjoni tal-Qrati 
Maltin. Jidher li dak l-artikolu japplika fejn ikun  
hemm diga` kawza dwar l-istess haga jew konnessa 
maghha li qieghda tinstema` minn Qorti barranija. 
Jekk ma jkunx hemm kawza bhal dik diga` 
mibdija, jidher li s-setgha li Qorti Maltija tqis u  
tisma` l-kawza tiddependi mill-kriterji li 
normalment isejsu l-gurisdizzjoni tal-Qrati Maltin 
skont l-artikolu 742(1) tal-Kap 12. 
 
Izda kif gie osservat minn din il-Qorti kif 
diversament presjeduta fil-kaz fl-ismijiet "Peter 
   
 41 Arrigo noe v Dr. Chris Cilia et. noe" (PA(JRM) - de c. 
fil-11 ta` Dicembru 2003). 
 
Sa minn zmien ilu, il-Qrati taghna taw gharfien 
lill-klawsoli gurisdizzjonali, u dan l-izjed taht i s-
sahha tal-principju tal-liberta` kuntrattwali tal-
partijiet u l-iehor li pacta sunt servanda, u jigif ieri 
li jekk parti tkun intrabtet b`patt li kwistjoni ke llha 
titresssaq quddiem qorti jew tribunal partikolari, 
dik ir-rabta ma setghetx tintesa jew titwarrab jekk  
mhux bi qbil bejn kulhadd (Ara, per ezempju, P.A. 
12.3.1954 fil-kawza fl-ismijiet "Tonna Barthet vs 
Pace noe" Kollez. Vol: XXXVIII.iii.653). 
 
Izda ghalkemm kien hemm xi ftit kazijiet fejn l-
ezistenza ta` klawsola bhal dik wasslet biex il-Qor ti 
qisitha bhala wahda tassattiva li tnehhi l-
gurisdizzjoni taghha (Ara, per ezempju, Kumm. 
6.10.1959 fil-kawza fl-ismijiet "Lucia noe vs Borg"  
(Kollez.Vol: XLIII.iii.870), il-bicca l-kbira tad-
decizjonijiet huma fis-sens li l-Qrati Maltin 
ghandhom kull jedd li jezercitaw diskrezzjoni jekk 
iwarrbux il- gurisdizzjoni taghhom taht is-sahha 
ta` klawsola bhal dik (Ara, per ezempju, App. Civ. 
9.12.1935 fil-kawza fl-ismijiet "Frendo vs Naudi 
et"(Kollez. Vol: XXIX.i.1317). Dan il-hsieb jaqbel 
sewwa ma` dak li tipprovdi espressament il-ligi 
taghna llum, u l-fehma l-izjed accettata hija li 
klawsola bhal dik ma tistax titfisser bhala li 
tezawtora ghal kollox u minn qabel il-gurisdizzjoni  
tal-Qorti li mqarr tistharreg il-kwistjoni (Ara, pe r 
ezempju, Kumm. 23.6.1994 GMA fil-kawza fl-
ismijiet "John Bonello noe et vs John Ripard noe et " 
(konfermata fl-Appell imma ghal ragunijiet ohrajn 
fis-7.10.1997) , u fejn, ikkunsidrati c-cirkostanzi , 
jkun jidher li l-partijiet tassew riedu din il-
klawsola". (Vol. XXIV P I p 1067); 
 
Fis-sentenza “PL Edoardo Frendo noe -vs- Dottor 
Roberto Naudi et noe”, Appell, 9 ta` Dicembru 1935 
   
 42 (Vol. XXIX P I p 1317), ittiehdet il-veduta prattik a 
illi : 
 
“allavolja jkun hemm klawsola f`dak is-sens, il-
Qrati taghna ghandhom gurisdizzjoni meta tkun 
kwistjoni ta` atti ta` avarea, jew ta` verifiki ta`  
danni li ma tistax issir hlief hawn Malta; jew 
almenu ma tistax issir quddiem it-tribunal ta` 
barra ahjar, u b`anqas spejjez, u f`anqas zmien 
milli quddiem it-Tribunal taghna.” Ara wkoll fl-
istess sens decizjonijiet a Vol. XVII P II p 33; Vo l. 
XXIII P III p 484; “Gerald Bartoli noe –vs- Emanuel  
Mathioudes noe”, Appell Kummercjali, 29 ta` Lulju 
1970); 
 
Kif din il-Qorti kif diversament presjeduta 
irriteniet: 
 
“Dan il-kriterju nsibuh abbraccjat f`bosta 
gurisdizzjonijiet ohra. Anzi dawn spiss imorru oltr e 
l-aspett singolari tal-verifika tad-danni. Jitqiesu  
fatturi bhal konnessjoni diretta, reali u sostanzja li 
mal-pajjiz ta` l-iskarikazzjoni billi l-provi jistg hu 
jigu rakkolti u stabbiliti ahjar, il-fatt tat-trapa ss 
taz-zmien, dubji dwar il-motivi tal-parti li 
teccepixxi n-nuqqas tal-gurisdizzjoni, l-ispejjez 
involuti u l-kwalita` ta` gustizzja fil-pajjiz xelt . Ara, 
fost ohrajn, “The Adolph Warski”, 1976; “The El 
Awria” 1980, “The Pia Veste”, 1984. "Materja bhal 
din hi mhollija fid-diskrezzjoni tal-gudikant adit 
millkaz" ("Joseph Felice Pace noe v Godwin Abela 
noe"- P.A. (PS) - dec. fit-28 ta` April 2003. 
 
Fil-kaz Ingliz, The Eleftheria, (1970) citat minn 
Cheshire and North fil-ktieb "Private International  
Law” il-principji li huma applikati minn Qorti 
Ingliza rinfaccjata b`talba mill-vettural ghas-
soprasessjoni minhabba “exclusive jurisdiction 
clause" huma :  
 
   
 43 " … (2) The discretion (to stay) should be exercise d 
by granting a stay unless a strong cause is shown 
for not doing so. (3) The burden of proving such 
strong cause is on the plaintiff. (4) In exercising  its 
discretion the court should take into account all t he 
circumstances of the particular case. (5) In 
particular, but without prejudice to (4), the 
following matters :- (a) in what country the eviden ce 
on the issues of fact is situated, or more readily 
available , and the effect of that on the relative 
convenience and expense of trial as between the 
English and foreign courts. (b) Whether the law of 
the foreign court applies and, if so, whether it di ffers 
from English Law in any material respects (c) With 
what country either party is connected and how 
closely. (d) Whether the defendants genuinely desir e 
trial in the foreign country or are only seeking 
procedural advantages. (e) Whether the plaintiffs 
would be prejudiced by having to sue in a foreign 
court because they would be (i) depriced of securit y 
for their claim; (ii) be unable to enforce any 
judgment obtained; (iii) be faced with a time bar n ot 
applicable in England, or (iv) for political, racia l, 
religious or other reasons be unlikely to get a fai r 
trial." 
 
Il-Qrati taghna stabbilew linja ta` principji gwida  li 
huma kompatibbli mal-principji enuncjati fl-The 
Eleftheria fuq citat. 
 
Hekk ad ezempju, johrog mir-ragunament tal-
Imhallef A. Parnis fis-6 ta` Lulju 1911 fil-kawza 
“Giovanni Pace –vs- Gennaro Civitelli noe”:- 
 
“La Corte come presieduta ritiene che quella 
clausola nel commercio marittimo deve essere attesa  
quando colla stessa non venisse recato un grave 
pregiudizio al caricatore o ricevitore nel senso ch e il 
rinviarlo innanzi al tribunale del compartimento al  
quale appartiene il vapore lo metterebbe nella 
impossibilita` di proseguire la causa, e quando per  
   
 44 la natura delle circostanze per le prove da essere 
addottati, l`esercizio dell`azione in queste Isole 
importerebbe economia di spese e non sarebbe 
pregiudizievole alla difesa per parte del vapore e dei 
suoi proprietari. In altri termini la clausola 
escludente la competenza del tribunale e` soggetta 
ad eccezioni, avuto riguardo alla circostanza ed 
avuto riguardo al fine pel quale quella clausola e`  
stata introdotta."  
 
“lli kif gie ritenut fil-kawza “Dr. Michael Scriha 
nomine vs Il Pamento Limited” (P.A. RCP. 9 ta` 
Jannar 2001) l-gurisprudenza nostrali hija 
konsistenti u tipprovdi, kif inghad inter alia fis-
sentenza “John Galdes nomine vs Joseph Bowman 
nomine” (K. F. 21 ta` Gunju 1993) li :- 
 
“Illi skont l-evoluzzjoni fid-dottrina li temani mi ll-
gurisprudenza lokali jidher li tali kwalsoli bhal d ik 
iccitata `supra` huma legalment validi pero` 
m`humiex assoluti dejjem. Di fatti f`numru ta` kazi  
l-Qrati irritenew li nonostante tali klawsola, xort a 
ghandom gurisdizzjoni in kwantu u limitatament 
ghal kostatazzjoni tan-nuqqas jew tal-hsara 
rriporatata fil-merkanzija de quo”. 
 
Illi dan isir peress li meta trid issir konstatazzj oni 
tal-kwalita` talmerkanzija, l-allegata mankanza 
jew difetti li setgha fiha, jew dwar nuqqasijiet dw ar 
l-istess merkanzija, il-Qrati taghna konsistentemen t 
irritenew illi meta l-istess merkanzija tinsab hawn  
Malta, iddeterminazzjoni tad-domicilju reali, fejn 
trid issir l-ezami tal-istess merkanzija, huwa dejj em 
Malta, minhabba li jekk tali verifiki jsiru f`post 
iehor, fejn ovvjament ma hemmx tali merkanzija, 
dan issir hafna aktar difficli jekk mhux 
impossibbli. (“Robert Bonello nomine vs Agostina 
Mifsud et nomine”. - K. S.S. 30 ta` April 1993- XXX  
D. iii. 373.- “Micallef et nomine vs Chev. Mifsud e t 
nomine. - A.C. 26 ta` Ottubru 1991). 
 
   
 45 Illi tal-istess portata huma s-sentenzi “Negoziante  
Andrea Gatt vs Negoziante Gustavo Gollcher” (K. 14 
ta` Novembru 1916 - XIII. iii. 484) fejn inghad ill i 
“il domicilio reale e` quello determinato dal luogo  
della scaricazione della merce trattandosi di una 
contestazione riguardo la mancanza della merce o 
la deficienza del peso di essa, fatti che possono s olo 
accettarsi alla scaricazione, ed innanzi al tribuna l 
del luogo di scaricazione che tali questioni posson o 
agevolamente svolgersi e defenirsi”. 
 
Illi kien ghalhekk u fuq dawn il-principji li l-Qor ti 
fil-kawza Prokuratur Legali Edoardo Frendo vs 
Dottor Roberto Naudi et nomine” (A. K. 9 ta` 
Dicembru 1935 - XXIX E. i. 1317) sostniet li, 
nonostante il-klawsola dwar gurisdizzjoni 
esklussiva ta` Qorti estera, din il-Qorti xorta 
ghandha gurisidizzjoni li tisma` l-kaz, jekk dan 
ikun iktar kompattibbli ghad-determinazzjoni tal-
pendenza, u iktar facli li tali kwistjoni tigi 
ezaminata b`mod iktar prattiku, kemm ghaliex l-
oggetti jkunu hawn Malta, u kemm ghaliex tali 
sentenza tkun tista` tigi esegwita hawn Malta. Fil-
kaz imsemmi, fil-fatt kien jittratta dwar konsenja 
ta` injam, li l-konvenut sostna li kienet ta` kwali ta` 
inferjuri, u peress li tali merkanzija kienet Malta , 
mela allura l-istess Qorti kkonfermat il-
gurisdizzjoni taghha. (“Galea vs Hammer” - 
XX.iii.32; - “Pace vs Civitelli” - XXI. iii. 71; “T homas 
vs Angeland” - K. 20 ta` Jannar 1975); “P.L. 
Edoardo Frendo vs Dr. Robert Naudi” - A.C. 9 ta` 
Dicembru1935.  
 
Izda kull kaz ghandu il-fattispecje partikolari 
tieghu u d-diskrizzjoni finali hija dejjem tal-Qort i. 
Sta ghalhekk ghall-attur li jikkonvinci lill-Qorti 
ghaliex huwa ghazel li jissorvola l-klawsola 
gurisdizzjonali fil-polza.” 
 
F`dan il-kaz, kif sewwa osservat l-ewwel Qorti, il-
kawza tirrigwarda zewg kumpaniji registrati hawn 
   
 46 Malta, u ftehim ta` appalt li kellu jigi esegwit, k if 
fil-fatt sar, hawn Malta. Wahda mill-eccezzjonijiet  
fil-meritu tas-socjetà konvenuta hija li l-appalt m a 
giex ezegwit skont l-arti u s-sengha, li timplika l i 
jridu jsiru kostattazzjonijiet fil-fond hawn Malta,  
kostattazzjonijiet ta` natura teknika, bil-Qorti, f orsi, 
jkollha tirrikorri ghall-hatra ta` perit tekniku. 
Ghalkemm il-ftehim hu soggett ghal-ligi tal-
Isvizzera, darba li l-bini sar Malta, l-istess bini  
jkun soggett ukoll ghal-ligijiet ta` Malta, 
specjalment dawk intezi ghat-tharis tas-sahha 
pubblika. Huwa car, ghalhekk, li huwa aktar 
kompatibbli ghad-determinazzjoni tal-pendenza, li 
l-kaz jinstema` Malta. Il-verifika tax-xoghol u tal -
allegat nuqqasijiet ma tistax issir hlief hawn Malt a, 
u din ic-cirkostanza timpingi manifestament favur 
il-gurisdizzjoni tal-qrati Maltin. 
 
Is-socjetà konvenuta tghid li d-dokumentazzjoni u l -
fatturi jinstabu kollha gewwa Zofingen, l-Isvizzera , 
pero`, dawn jistghu facilment jigu trasmessi lejn 
Malta bi spiza minima. Tghid ukoll li x-xhieda 
rilevanti jinsabu gewwa l-Isvizzera. Apparti l-fatt  li 
llum wiehed jista` jiehu x-xhieda ta` persuna li 
tinsab barra minn Malta b`mezzi elettronici, bhal 
skype, li l-bini ta` dawn il-qrati hu attrezzat gha lih, 
l-iskomdu li xhud jista` jbati jekk ikollu ta` bilf ors 
jingieb Malta, huwa zghir maqbul mac- cirkostanzi 
li l-appalt gie esegwit u jrid jigi ezaminat in sit u 
hawn Malta. 
 
Il-kwistjoni kuntrattwali relatata ma` allegat late  
delivery tista`, forsi, tigi mistharrga f`kull pajj iz, 
pero`, din il-Qorti ma tarax li ghandha tispezza s-
smiegh tal-kawza, u darba li parti importanti tal-
kawza tehtieg smiegh hawn Malta, il-kaz kollu hu 
desiderabbli li jibqa` jinstema` hawn Malta. 
 
Il-fatt li l-proper law of contract tista` tkun il- ligi 
Svizzera, ma jwassalx ghall-konsegwenza li l-qrati 
li jisimghu l-kaz iridu bil-fors ikunu tal-istess p ajjiz 
   
 47 esteru – ara l-kummenti ta` din il-Qorti f`dan is-
sens fil-kawza “Maltrad (Holdings) Ltd. v. Coll”, 
deciza fis-27 ta` Marzu, 2015. 
 
Issa, fi stadju inoltrat tal-appell, is-socjeta` 
konvenuta ghamlet referenza ghall-konvenzjoni 
Europea tal-1968 (il-Brussels Convention on 
jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in 
civil and commercial matters), maghrufa 
komunement bhala l-Brussels I, u ghall-hekk 
imsejha Lugano Convention, iffirmata fl-1988, li 
tirrifletti l-ewwel konvenzjoni, izda testendiha 
ghan-Norvegja, l-Izlanda u l-Izvizzera. 
 
Skont din l-ahhar konvenzjoni, li hi applikabbli 
ghall-kaz, meta f`kuntratt ikun miftiehem bejn il-
partijiet liema pajjiz ghandu jiddetermina tilwima 
bejn l-istess partijiet, huma l-qrati ta` dak l-ist at li 
jkollhom gurisdizzjoni esklussiva biex tisma` dik i t-
tilwima. 
 
Din il-Qorti, pero`, tqis li, f`dan il-kaz, ir-rego la 
msemmija ma tistax tigi attwata. 
 
Skont l-istess konvenzjoni, il-qorti ta` dak l-ista t fejn 
il-konvenut ikun deher (“enters an appearance”), 
ikollha f`kull kaz gurisdizzjoni, u dan sakemm ma 
jkunx deher biss (“solely”) biex jikkontesta l-
gurisdizzjoni tal-Qorti. F`dan il-kaz, is-socjetà 
konvenuta dehret quddiem il-qorti u ikkontestat 
mhux biss il-gurisdizzjoni tal-istess qorti, izda r essqet 
eccezzjonijiet fil-meritu. B`dan il-mod, hi 
issottomettiet ruhha ghall-gurisdizzjoni tal-qrati 
Maltin. Meta dehret fil-qorti, ma illimitatx ruhha 
biex tikkontesta l-gurisdizzjoni tal-qorti, izda da hlet 
fil-meritu tal-kwistjoni, ikkontrastat dak sottomes s 
mis-socjetà attrici, u issottomettiet ghall-gurisdi zzjoni 
tal-qorti Maltija dwar il-meritu.  
 
 
 
   
 48 3. Ir-Regolament (supra) u l-Konvenzjoni (supra)  
 
   
Hemm qbil bejn il-partijiet illi ghall-kwistjoni ta l-gurisdizzjoni 
ghandhom rilevanza kemm ir-Regolament, kif ukoll il -Konvenzjoni ; din tal-
ahhar  ghandha dispozizzjonijiet kwazi identici gha l dawk tar-Regolament.  
Il-Konvenzjoni tapplika ghall-kaz in dizamina ghali ex ghalkemm in-Norvegja 
mhijiex stat membru tal-UE, hija firmatarja tal-Kon venzjoni.  Il-Konvenzjoni 
tghodd ghal Malta billi hija Stat membru tal-UE. 
 
 
L-atturi jirreferu ghall- Artikolu 24(2) u (3) u ghall-Artikolu 25(4)  
tar-Regolament, u ghall-Artikolu 22(2) u (3)  u l- Artikolu 23(5) tal-
Konvenzjoni . 
 
 
L-Artikolu 24  tar-Regolament  ighid :- 
 
Dawn il-qrati li gejjin ta` Stat Membru ghandu 
jkollhom gurisdizzjoni eskluziva, independentement 
mid-domicilju tal-partijiet : 
 
… 
 
(2) fi procedimenti li jkollhom bhala l-objettiv 
taghhom il-validità tal-kostituzzjoni, in-nullità j ew 
ix-xoljiment ta` kumpanniji jew ta` persuni guridic i 
ohra jew ghaqdiet ta` persuni fizici jew guridici, jew 
il-validità tad-decizjonijiet tal-organi taghhom, i l-
qrati tal-Istat Membru li fih il-kumpannija, il-
persuna guridika jew ghaqda jkollha s-sede taghhom.  
Sabiex tiddetermina dik is-sede, il-qorti ghandha 
tapplika r-regoli taghha tad-dritt internazzjonali 
privat;  
 
(3) fi procedimenti li jkollhom bhala l-objettiv 
taghhom il-validità tad-dhul f`registri pubblici, i l-
qrati tal-Istat Membru li fih jinzamm ir-registru ; 
 
 
 
   
 49 L-Artikolu 25(4)  jaqra: 
 
Ftehim jew dispozizzjonijiet ta` strument ta` trust  li 
jaghtu gurisdizzjoni m`ghandux ikollhom forza legal i 
jekk dawn imorru kontru l-Artikoli 15, 19 jew 23, j ew 
jekk il-qrati li l-gurisdizzjoni taghhom dawn iridu  
jeskludu jkollhom il-gurisdizzjoni eskluziva bis-
sahha tal-Artikolu 24.  
 
 
Huwa ta` rilevanza ghall-kawza odjerna dak illi ngh ad fil-kawza fl-
ismijiet Koza Ltd and Anor vs Akcil and Ors , deciza mill-Qorti tal-Appell 
Ingliza fit-18 ta` Ottubru 2017 ([2017] EWCA Civ 16 09).  Hemm kienet 
konfermata s-sentenza tal-Ewwel Qorti (Asplin J, ([ 2016] EWHC 3358 (Ch)) 
fejn kien affermat illi l-qorti kellha gurisdizzjon i sabiex tiddeciedi kawza 
mressqa minn kumpannija sussidjarja domiciljata l-I ngliterra kontra l- parent 
company u konvenuti ohrajn domiciljati fit-Turkija.   
 
 
Huma bosta li jqisu din id-decizjoni bhala leading judgment  ghall-fini 
tal-interpretazzjoni tal-Artikolu 24(2) tar-Regolam ent. 
 
 
L-osservazzjoni kienet illi r-regola generali hija illi kawza trid tigi 
ntavolata quddiem il-qrati fejn ghandu domicilju l- konvenut.  L-Artikolu 24 
pero` jindika numru ta` eccezzjonijiet, li min-natu ra taghhom ghandhom 
jinghataw interpretazzjoni restrittiva.  
 
 
Jinghad :- 
 
24. The policy rationale for article 24(2), which 
guides its interpretation, is that it is desirable 
to centralise jurisdiction in relation to the 
identified subject matter in order to avoid 
conflicting decisions, for example as to the 
existence of a company or the validity of one of 
its decisions. The courts of the member state 
where the company has its seat are also 
recognised to be best placed to deal with such 
disputes: see Case C-372/07 Nicole Hassett v 
   
 50 South Eastern Health Board  [2008] ECR I-
7403  at [20] and [21].  
 
… 
 
26. There is no dispute that the seat of Koza 
Limited, which is a company registered under 
the Companies Acts, is in England and Wales. 
No reliance is placed by the claimants on the 
first limb of article 24(2) i.e. that concerned 
with "the validity of the constitution, the 
nullity or dissolution of companies or other 
legal persons or associations of natural and 
legal persons". The question which arises 
therefore is whether the proceedings can be 
classified as ones which have as their object 
"the validity of the decisions of [Koza 
Limited`s] organs". It is common ground that 
Koza Limited`s shareholders in general 
meeting and its board of directors constitute 
organs of that company. ” 
 
 
Fil-kaz mertu tal-kawza tal-lum, l-atturi qeghdin j attakkaw “ il-
validita` tad-decizjonijiet tal-organi ”. 
 
 
Ma jidhirx li huwa kkontestat illi l-laqgha general i tal-azzjonisti u l-
bord tad-diretturi huma organi kemm ta` BHC kif uko ll ta` AC1. 
 
 
Fid-decizjoni kompla jinghad :- 
 
28. It is common ground that when article 24(2) 
speaks of proceedings having an "object" it is 
not referring to the purpose of the proceedings. 
Rather that phrase is to be interpreted as 
"proceedings which are principally concerned 
with" one of the types of subject matter within 
the article. That was the view of Aikens LJ 
(with whom Etherton and Pill LJJ agreed) 
   
 51 in JP Morgan Chase Bank NA and another v 
Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe Anstalt des 
Öffentlichen Rechts [2010] EWCA Civ 390  in 
relation to the equivalent provision in the 
predecessor regulation, Council Regulation 
(EC) No 44/2001 at [83]. There is no reason 
why the same should not be the case in relation 
to article 24(2) of the Recast Judgments 
Regulation. 
 
29. In order to answer the question whether 
proceedings which raise multiple issues are 
"principally concerned" with one of the matters 
within article 24(2) the court has to undertake 
"an exercise in "overall classification" and 
make an "overall judgment" to see whether the 
proceedings are "principally concerned" with 
one of the matters set out in" the article: JP 
Morgan Chase at [87]. 
 
 
30. In JP Morgan Chase at [88] Aikens LJ, said 
that this interpretation of the corresponding 
article, article 22(2), of the predecessor 
regulation: 
 
"… fits with the wording of article 25. It also 
fits with the objective of article 22, which is to 
give exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of the 
state which will be best suited to dealing with 
the relevant issue, depending on which 
paragraph of article 22 is in play. It is only 
necessary to displace the general rule as to 
jurisdiction or the parties` own agreed 
jurisdictional choice if, making an overall 
judgment, it is clear that granting jurisdiction 
to the courts of the relevant state (where the 
land is, where the company has its seat, where 
the patent is registered, etc) will result in the 
sound administration of justice. In the context 
of article 22.2, this will not be the case unless, 
   
 52 overall, the proceedings are so closely connected 
with matters of local company law and internal 
corporate decision making in respect of the 
company that the proceedings should not be 
tried anywhere but in the courts of the state 
where the company has its seat." 
 
 
31. It is to be noted that the final sentence of th e 
passage I have cited from Aikens LJ`s 
judgment expresses the test in terms of the 
proceedings overall, and their connection with 
matters of local company law and internal 
corporate decision making. It is very far from a 
statement that the proceedings must exclusively 
relate to matters of local company law. Indeed 
it is difficult to see how such a test could be 
applied in any real dispute, where other legal 
issues will almost inevitably arise. 
 
 
32. In Hassett (supra), two doctors who were 
sought to be made liable in proceedings for 
damages for personal injuries, sought 
indemnification against the Medical Defence 
Union (MDU) of which they were members. The 
MDU was a company incorporated in England. 
The MDU responded that its articles of 
association provided that any request for an 
indemnity came within its absolute discretion, 
and refused the requests. On the basis that the 
refusals infringed their rights under the 
articles of association, the doctors successfully 
joined the MDU as additional party to a claim 
which had been brought against them in 
Ireland by individual claimants (in fact via the 
health authority as an intervening party). The 
MDU then contended that its joinder should be 
set aside on the ground that, because the claims 
against it "concerned in essence the validity of 
decisions adopted by its board of management" 
   
 53 they fell within the scope of article 22(2) of 
Regulation 44/2001, with the result that 
jurisdiction lay exclusively with the courts of 
England and Wales and not the courts of 
Ireland. 
 
 
33. The Court of Justice characterised the question  
which it was asked by the Irish Supreme Court 
as being whether article 22(2) meant that 
proceedings in which one of the parties alleges 
that a decision adopted by an organ of the 
company infringes its rights under that 
company`s articles of association were 
proceedings concerned with the validity of the 
decisions of the organs of the company within 
the meaning of that provision. The Court of 
Justice had little difficulty in answering that 
question in the negative. At paragraph 23 of the 
judgment the court pointed out that if all 
disputes involving a decision by an organ of a 
company had to be treated as coming within 
the scope of the article, that would mean that 
all legal actions brought against a company, 
whether in matters relating to contract, or to 
tort or any other subject matter, would almost 
always come within the jurisdiction of the 
courts of the member state in which the 
company had its seat. Thus the provision had 
to be interpreted as covering only disputes in 
which a party is challenging the validity of a 
decision of an organ of a company. There was 
no indication that the doctors had raised any 
such challenge. In fact the challenge was to the 
way in which the power undoubtedly contained 
in the articles of association was to be exercised.  
As the court put it at paragraph 22, it was not 
"sufficient that a legal action involve some link 
with a decision adopted by an organ of a 
company". 
 
   
 54  
34. Of more direct assistance is Case C-
144/10 Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe, Anstalt des 
öffentlichen Rechts v JP Morgan Chase 
Bank NA [2011] 1 WLR 2087 . There, the 
German public transport authority (BVG) 
brought proceedings in Germany seeking a 
declaration that a swap contract, which it had 
entered into with an American bank, and in 
respect of which the bank had brought 
enforcement proceedings in the English High 
Court pursuant to an English jurisdiction 
clause, was void because its subject matter 
was ultra vires the authority`s own statutes. It 
contended that, by virtue of article 22(2), the 
subject matter was one over which the courts of 
Germany, as the state in which it had its seat, 
had exclusive jurisdiction. The relief BVG 
sought in Germany also included an order, in 
the alternative, that the bank should release 
BVG from any obligation stemming from the 
swap contract (as compensation for negligent 
advice given by the bank), and for damages 
against the bank. 
 
 
35. The Court of Justice recognised at [37] that 
Regulation 44/2001 conferred exclusive 
jurisdiction to adjudicate on disputes which 
relate to the validity of the decision of a 
company`s organs upon the courts where the 
company had its seat, and that those courts 
were best placed to adjudicate upon disputes 
which relate exclusively, or even principally to 
such a question. It went on, however, to state at 
[38]: 
 
"However, in a dispute of a contractual nature, 
questions relating to the contract`s validity, 
interpretation or enforceability are at the heart 
of the dispute and form its subject-matter. Any 
   
 55 question concerning the validity of the decision 
to conclude the contract, taken previously by the 
organs of one of the companies party to it, must 
be considered ancillary. While it may form part 
of the analysis required to be carried out in that 
regard, it nevertheless does not constitute the 
sole, or even the principal, subject of the 
analysis." 
 
 
36. In that passage, the court is giving general 
guidance as to disputes which can be properly 
characterised as "of a contractual nature". 
Whilst issues about the validity of the decision 
to conclude the contract might well, in isolation 
or in other contexts, fall within Regulation 
44/2001, in the particular context of 
contractual disputes they were not, in general, 
the principal concern of the proceedings. 
 
 
37. The task for the court in each case is therefor e 
to determine whether the proceedings relate 
principally to the validity of the decisions of an 
organ of the company. A mere link to a decision 
of the company, or an issue raised which is 
ancillary to the heart of a contractual or some 
other dispute, is insufficient to bring the 
proceedings within the exclusive jurisdiction. 
 
 
Issir ukoll referenza ssir ghall-kaz ta`  Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe 
(BVG) Anstalt Des Offentlichen Rechts v JP Morgan C hase Bank N.A. 
& Anor  (Rev 2) [2010] EWCA Civ 390 (28 April 2010).   
 
 
Fid-decizjoni saret referenza ghall- Jenard Report  ghar-rigward ta` 
interpretazzjoni. 
 
 
Inghad hekk :- 
   
 56  
40.  The Jenard report on what are now Article 22 
and Article 25 makes four important general 
points. First, the provisions of Article 22 cannot 
be departed from either by agreement of the 
parties or by an implied submission to another 
jurisdiction. Secondly, any court of a state other 
than the state whose courts have the exclusive 
jurisdiction must declare of its own motion that 
it has no jurisdiction: Article 25. Thirdly, a 
failure to observe these rules is a ground to 
refuse recognition or enforcement of a 
judgment: Article 35. Lastly, and most 
importantly, Jenard comments that "the 
matters referred to in [Article 22] will normally 
be the subject of exclusive jurisdiction only if 
they constitute the principal subject matter of 
the proceedings of which the court is to be 
seised". He also puts it another way: "These 
rules [in Article 22]…take as their criterion the 
subject-matter of the action…". 
41.    In commenting on Article 22.2 in particular, 
Jenard states that the proceedings before the 
court having exclusive jurisdiction will be "…in 
substance concerned either with the validity of 
the constitution, the nullity or dissolution of the  
company, legal person or association, or with 
the decisions of its organs". The rationale for 
giving exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of the 
state where the company (or other legal entity 
within Article 22.2) is that the state concerned 
will have all relevant information concerning 
the company and it will be made public. This 
last point does not strike me as being 
particularly compelling, at least in proceedings 
in common law jurisdictions, where all relevant 
documents and information would have to be 
disclosed to the other parties involved. But that 
may not be so in other jurisdictions. 
   
 57 With regard to the words "principally 
concerned" in Article 25, Jenard makes the 
comment that they have the effect that a court 
is not obliged to reject jurisdiction "if an issue 
which comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of 
another court is raised only as a preliminary or 
incidental matter". This remark gave rise to 
argument before us. Did it follow that if a court 
of a member state was seised of proceedings in 
which one of the issues in it fell within one of 
the six paragraphs of Article 22, but that issue 
was not simply "preliminary" or "incidental", 
then those proceedings must therefore be 
"principally concerned" with a matter over 
which the courts of another member state had 
jurisdiction by virtue of Article 22? If it did, 
then the consequence must be, in accordance 
with Article 25, that the court seised must 
declare (of its own motion) that it had no 
jurisdiction. 
 
 
Fuq l-istess binarju kienet id-decizjoni dwar preliminary reference li tat 
l-CJEU fis-7 ta` Marzu 2018 fil-kawza fl-ismijiet E.ON Czech Holding AG v 
Michael Dědouch et  (Ref: C-560 /16) fejn inghad :  
 
21. By its first question, the referring court 
asks, in essence, whether Article 22(2) of 
Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted 
as meaning that an action, such as that in 
the main proceedings, for review of the 
reasonableness of the consideration that the 
principal shareholder of a company is 
required to pay to the minority 
shareholders of that company in the event 
of the compulsory transfer of their shares to 
that principal shareholder comes within the 
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the 
Member State in which that company is 
established. 
 
   
 58 22.     In that regard, it should be borne in mind 
that, in the main proceedings, although the 
resolution of the general meeting of 
Jihočeská plynárenská concerned both the 
transfer of its shares to the principal 
shareholder and the determination of the 
amount of consideration to be paid to the 
minority shareholders, Mr Dědouch, 
Mr Streitberg and Mr Suda, in their action, 
merely challenge the reasonableness of that 
amount. 
 
23.     Even if that action should give rise to a 
decision that the amount is not reasonable, 
Czech law explicitly precludes that decision 
from being able to have the effect of 
invalidating the resolution of the general 
meeting in so far as it concerned that transfer 
or from being relied upon for the purposes of 
an application to have that resolution 
declared invalid. 
 
24.     Consequently, according to a literal 
interpretation of the wording of Article 22(2) 
of Regulation No 44/2001, it is by no means 
certain that such an action comes within the 
scope of that provision, since the rule of 
jurisdiction which that provision lays down is 
applicable in proceedings which have as their 
object the `validity of the decisions of [the] 
organs` of companies or legal persons. 
 
25.     According to the settled case-law of the Co urt, 
the provisions of Regulation No 44/2001 must 
be interpreted independently, by reference to 
its scheme and purpose (judgments of 13 July 
2006, Reisch Montage, C-103/05, 
EU:C:2006:471, paragraph 29; of 2 October 
2008, Hassett and Doherty, C-372/07, 
EU:C:2008:534, paragraph 17; and of 
   
 59 16 January 2014, Kainz, C-45/13, 
EU:C:2014:7, paragraph 19). 
 
26.     As regards the general scheme and context o f 
Regulation No 44/2001, it should be recalled 
that the jurisdiction provided for in Article 2 
of that regulation, namely that the courts of 
the Member State in which the defendant is 
domiciled are to have jurisdiction, constitutes 
the general rule. It is only by way of 
derogation from that general rule that the 
regulation provides for special and exclusive 
rules of jurisdiction for cases, which are 
exhaustively listed, in which the defendant 
may or must, depending on the case, be sued 
in the courts of another Member State 
(judgments of 13 July 2006, Reisch Montage, 
C-103/05, EU:C:2006:471, paragraph 22, and 
of 12 May 2011, BVG, C-144/10, 
EU:C:2011:300, paragraph 30). 
 
27.     Those rules of special and exclusive 
jurisdiction must accordingly be interpreted 
strictly. As the provisions of Article 22 of 
Regulation No 44/2001 introduce an 
exception to the general rule governing the 
attribution of jurisdiction, they must not be 
given an interpretation broader than that 
which is required by their objective (judgments 
of 2 October 2008, Hassett and Doherty, 
C-372/07, EU:C:2008:534, paragraphs 18 and 
19, and of 12 May 2011, BVG, C-144/10, 
EU:C:2011:300, paragraph 30). 
 
28.    As regards the objectives and the purpose of  
Regulation No 44/2001, it should be recalled 
that, as is apparent from recitals 2 and 11 
thereof, that regulation seeks to unify the rules 
on conflict of jurisdiction in civil and 
commercial matters by way of rules of 
jurisdiction which are highly predictable. That 
   
 60 regulation thus pursues an objective of legal 
certainty which consists in strengthening the 
legal protection of persons established in the 
European Union, by enabling the applicant 
easily to identify the court in which he may sue 
and the defendant reasonably to foresee before 
which court he may be sued (judgments of 
23 April 2009, Falco Privatstiftung and 
Rabitsch, C-533/07, EU:C:2009:257, 
paragraphs 21 and 22; of 17 March 2016, Taser 
International, C-175/15, EU:C:2016:176, 
paragraph 32; and of 14 July 2016, Granarolo, 
C-196/15, EU:C:2016:559, paragraph 16). 
 
29.     Furthermore, as is apparent from 
recital 12 of that regulation, the rules of 
jurisdiction derogating from the general 
rule of jurisdiction of the courts of the 
Member State in which the defendant is 
domiciled supplement the general rule 
where there is a close link between the court 
designated by those rules and the action or 
in order to facilitate the sound 
administration of justice. 
 
30.     In particular, the rules of exclusive 
jurisdiction laid down in Article 22 of 
Regulation No 44/2001 seek to ensure that 
jurisdiction rests with courts closely linked 
to the proceedings in fact and law (see, with 
regard to Article 16 of the Convention of 
27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the 
enforcement of judgments in civil and 
commercial matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), 
the provisions of which are essentially 
identical to those of Article 22 of Regulation 
No 44/2001, judgment of 13 July 
2006, GAT, C-4/03, EU:C:2006:457, 
paragraph 21), in other words, to confer 
exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of a 
Member State in specific circumstances 
   
 61 where, having regard to the matter at issue, 
those courts are best placed to adjudicate 
upon the disputes falling to them by reason 
of a particularly close link between those 
disputes and that Member State (judgment 
of 12 May 2011, BVG, C-144/10, 
EU:C:2011:300, paragraph 36). 
 
31.    Thus, the essential objective pursued by 
Article 22(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 is that 
of centralising jurisdiction in order to avoid 
conflicting judgments being given as regards 
the existence of a company or as regards the 
validity of the decisions of its organs (judgment 
of 2 October 2008, Hassett and Doherty, 
C-372/07, EU:C:2008:534, paragraph 20). 
 
32.    The courts of the Member State in which the 
company has its seat appear to be those best 
placed to deal with such disputes, inter alia 
because it is in that State that information 
about the company will have been notified and 
made public. Exclusive jurisdiction is thus 
attributed to those courts in the interests of the 
sound administration of justice (judgment of 
2 October 2008, Hassett and Doherty, 
C-372/07, EU:C:2008:534, paragraph 21). 
 
33.     However, the Court has held that it cannot be 
inferred from this that, in order for Article 22(2)  
of Regulation No 44/2001 to apply, it is 
sufficient that a legal action involve some link 
with a decision adopted by an organ of a 
company (judgment of 2 October 2008, Hassett 
and Doherty, C-372/07, EU:C:2008:534, 
paragraph 22), and that the scope of that 
provision covers only disputes in which a party 
is challenging the validity of a decision of an 
organ of a company under the company law 
applicable or the provisions of its article of 
association governing the functioning of its 
   
 62 organs (judgments of 2 October 2008, Hassett 
and Doherty, C-372/07, EU:C:2008:534, 
paragraph 26, and of 23 October 2014, flyLAL-
Lithuanian Airlines, C-302/13, 
EU:C:2014:2319, paragraph 40). 
 
34.     In the present case, while it is true that,  under 
Czech law, proceedings such as those at issue in 
the main proceedings may not lead formally to 
a decision which has the effect of invalidating a 
resolution of the general assembly of a company 
concerning the compulsory transfer of the 
minority shareholders` shares in that company 
to the majority shareholder, the fact nonetheless 
remains that, in accordance with the 
requirements of the autonomous interpretation 
and uniform application of the provisions of 
Regulation No 44/2001, the scope of 
Article 22(2) thereof cannot depend on the 
choices made in national law by Member States 
or vary depending on them. 
 
35.     On the one hand, the origin of those 
proceedings lies in a challenge to the amount of 
the consideration relating to such a transfer 
and, on the other, their purpose is to secure a 
review of the reasonableness of that amount. 
 
36.     It follows that, having regard to Article 2 2(2) 
of Regulation No 44/2001, legal proceedings 
such as those at issue in the main proceedings 
concern the review of the partial validity of a 
decision of an organ of a company and that 
such proceedings are, as a result, capable of 
coming within the scope of that provision, as 
envisaged by its wording. 
 
37.     Thus, in those circumstances, a court heari ng 
such an application for review must examine 
the validity of a decision of an organ of a 
company in so far as that decision concerns the 
   
 63 determination of the amount of the 
consideration, decide whether that amount is 
reasonable and, where necessary, annul that 
decision in that respect and determine a 
different amount of consideration. 
 
38.     Furthermore, an interpretation of Article 2 2(2) 
of Regulation No 44/2001 according to which 
that provision applies to proceedings such as 
those at issue in the main proceedings is 
consistent with the essential objective pursued 
by that provision and does not have the effect of 
extending its scope beyond what is required by 
that objective. 
 
39.     In that regard, the existence of a close li nk 
between the courts of the Member State in 
which Jihočeská plynárenská is established, in 
the present case the Czech courts, and the 
dispute in the main proceedings is clear. 
 
40.     In addition to the fact that Jihočeská 
plynárenská is a company incorporated under 
Czech law, it is apparent from the file 
submitted to the Court that the resolution of the 
general meeting that determined the amount of 
the consideration forming the subject of the 
main proceedings and the acts and formalities 
relating to it were carried out in accordance 
with Czech law and in the Czech language. 
 
41.     Likewise, it is not disputed that the court  with 
jurisdiction must apply Czech substantive law 
to the dispute in the main proceedings. 
 
42.     Consequently, bearing in mind the close lin k 
between the dispute in the main proceedings 
and the Czech courts, the latter are best placed 
to hear that dispute relating to the review of the 
partial validity of that resolution and the 
attribution, pursuant to Article 22(2) of 
   
 64 Regulation No 44/2001, of exclusive 
jurisdiction to those courts is such as to 
facilitate the sound administration of justice. 
 
43.     The attribution of that jurisdiction to the  
Czech courts is also consistent with the 
objectives of predictability of the rules of 
jurisdiction and legal certainty pursued by 
Regulation No 44/2001, since, as the Advocate 
General observed in point 35 of his Opinion, the 
shareholders in a company, especially the 
principal shareholder, must expect that the 
courts of the Member State in which that 
company is established will be the courts 
having jurisdiction to decide any internal 
dispute within that company relating to the 
review of the partial validity of a decision taken 
by an organ of a company. 
 
44.     Moreover, inasmuch as the principal 
shareholder of a company may change during 
the existence of that company, application of the 
general rule of jurisdiction of the courts of the 
Member State in which the defendant is 
domiciled, laid down in Article 2(1) of 
Regulation No 44/2001, to a situation such as 
that at issue in the main proceedings would not 
ensure that those objectives are achieved. 
 
45.     In those circumstances, the answer to the f irst 
question is that Article 22(2) of Regulation 
No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning 
that an action, such as that at issue in the main 
proceedings, for review of the reasonableness of 
the consideration that the principal shareholder 
of a company is required to pay to the minority 
shareholders of that company in the event of the 
compulsory transfer of their shares to that 
principal shareholder comes within the 
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the 
   
 65 Member State in which that company is 
established. 
 
 
Premessa din il-gurisprudenza, il-Qorti tosserva li  l-atturi jaghmlu l-
argument illi abbazi tal-Art 24(2) tar-Regolament, il-Qrati Maltin ghandhom 
gurisdizzjoni esklussiva illi jiddeciedu l-vertenza  odjerna billi l-kawza 
tirrigwarda : il-validita` tad-decizjonijiet ta` or gani, senjatament il-Bord tad-
Diretturi, ta` BHC u AC1 ; il-laqgha generali ta` A C1 ; kemm BHC u kif ukoll 
AC1 huma kostitwiti Malta skont il-Kap 386 ; iz-zew g kumpanniji ghandhom 
is-sede u l-indirizz registrat taghhom gewwa Malta ; u l-kawza tittratta dwar 
il-validita` tal-atti registrati fir-Registru tal-K umpanniji ta` Malta, liema 
registru jikkwalifika bhala registru pubbliku. 
 
 
Il-Qorti tkompli tosserva li min-naha taghhom, il-k onvenuti jaghmlu l-
argument illi ma jista` qatt jinghad illi d-disposi zzjonijiet jaghtu gurisdizzjoni 
lill-Qrati Maltin ghaliex minkejja li s-sede tal-ku mpanniji koncernati tinsab 
Malta, diga` ttiehdu diversi proceduri gudizzjarji fin-Norvegja b`uhud jigu 
decizi finalment u ohrajn ghadhom pendenti.  Il-kon venuti ghamlu accenn 
ghall-procedura ta` likwidazzjoni illi ssoggettat r uhha ghalihom Marsoft fin-
Norvegja.  Sar accenn ukoll ghall-procedura ta` sek westru tal-assi ta` Eckbo 
fin-Norvegja.  Il-konvenuti rrilevaw illi l-procedu ri pendenti fin-Norvegja 
jirrigwardaw l-istess fatti illi jsawwru dan il-kaz  u l-kwistjonijiet ta` bejn il-
kumpanniji.   
 
Il-konvenuti jirreferu ghall- Artikoli 27 u 28 tal-Konvenzjoni . 
 
 
L-Artikolu 27  jaqra : 
 
1. Fejn il-procedimenti li jinvolvu l-istess sugget t tal-
kawza u li jkunu bejn l-istess partijiet jitressqu fil-
qrati ta` Stati differenti marbuta b`din il-
Konvenzjoni, kwalunkwe qorti, diversa mill-qorti li  
quddiemha gew istitwiti l-ewwel il-procedimenti, 
ghandha twaqqaf il-procedimenti ex officio sa meta 
tigi stabbilita l-gurisdizzjoni tal-qorti li quddie mha 
gew istitwiti l-ewwel il-procedimenti.  
 
   
 66 2. Fejn tigi stabbilita l-gurisdizzjoni tal-qorti l i 
quddiemha gew istitwiti l-ewwel il-procedimenti, 
kwalunkwe qorti barra l-qorti li quddiemha gew 
istitwiti l-ewwel il-procedimenti ghandha tastjeni 
milli tassumi gurisdizzjoni favur dik il-qorti. 
 
 
 L-Artikolu 28  ighid : 
 
1. Fejn ikunu pendenti kawzi relatati fil-qrati ta`  
Stati differenti marbuta b`din il-Konvenzjoni, 
kwalunkwe qorti, diversa mill-qorti li quddiemha 
gew istitwiti l-ewwel il-procedimenti, tista` twaqq af 
il-procedimenti taghha.  
 
2. Fejn dawn il-kawzi jkunu pendenti fl-ewwel 
istanza, kwalunkwe qorti, diversa mill-qorti li 
quddiemha gew istitwiti l-ewwel il-procedimenti, 
tista` wkoll, fuq applikazzjoni ta` wahda mill-
partijiet, tastjeni milli tassumi gurisdizzjoni jek k l-
qorti li quddiemha gew istitwiti l-ewwel il-
procedimenti jkollha l-gurisdizzjoni fuq il-kawzi i n 
kwistjoni u l-ligi taghha tippermetti l-konsolidame nt 
taghhom. 
 
3. Ghall-finijiet ta` dan l-Artikolu, il-kawzi huma  
meqjusa bhala relatati meta tant ikunu konnessi 
mill-qrib li jkun espedjenti li jigu mismughin u de cizi 
flimkien sabiex ikun evitat ir-riskju li jirrizulta w 
sentenzi irrikonciljabbli minn procedimenti separat i. 
 
 
Dawn id-disposizzjonijiet jittrattaw l-eccezzjoni t a` lis alibi pendens .   
 
 
Din il-materja kienet trattata diversi drabi mill-q rati taghna.  
Ghalkemm l-isfond trattata kien fil-kuntest lokali bl-applikazzjoni tal- Art  
793 tal-Kap 12 , l-insenjamenti tal-gurisprudenza jistghu jigu app likati wkoll 
ghall- Artikoli 27 u 28 tal-Konvenzjoni . 
 
 
   
 67 Tajjeb jinghad illi l-qrati taghna huma propensi ja ccettaw is-
soprasessjoni ta` kawza meta dan ikun spedjenti, fe jn tinqala` kwistjoni li d-
decizjoni taghha tinfluwixxi sostanzjalment fuq l-e situ ta` kawza, u fil-kazi 
meta jkun hemm lok ghas-soluzzjoni ta` xi punt li m innu tiddependi 
necessarjament il-kontinwazzjoni tal-kawza li tkun ser tigi soprassessa. 
(Kollez. Vol. XXXIX.I.467 ; Appell Civili – “ Cassar vs Xuereb ” – 12 ta` 
Marzu 1973 ; “Joseph  Gaffarena et vs Mixer Concrete Works Limited 
et ” – Prim`Awla tal-Qorti Civili – 27 ta` Mejju 2005) . Id-diskrezzjoni li 
jokkorda jew jichad talba ghal soprassessjoni tispe tta lill-gudikant li fil-
provvediment illi jaghti ghandu jqis il-fatti u cir kostanzi ta` kull kaz (ara – 
Appell Civili – Grech noe vs Buttigieg et noe – 26 ta` Marzu 1984). Kien 
ritenut li m`ghandux ikun hemm soprasessjoni jekk p arti fil-kawza tkun ser 
tbati pregudizzju (ara : Prim`Awla tal-Qorti Civili  - Amber Properties 
Limited vs Central Holidays (Travel Agents and Orga nisers) Limited 
et  - 25 ta` Marzu 2013). 
 
 
Fil-provvediment illi tat din il-Qorti kif presjedu ta fl-10 ta` April 2014 
fil-kawza “ Agnes Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq vs 
Annamaria Spiteri Debono pro et noe et ” (konfermata b`sentenza tal-
Qorti tal-Appell tal-31 ta` Ottubru 2014) inghad he kk dwar is-soprasessjoni :  
 
“Il-Qorti ghandha tilqa` talba ghas-soprasessjoni 
meta jkun spedjenti li taghmel hekk (ara Kollez. 
Vol. XXXIX.I.467 ; u Appell Civili – Cassar vs 
Xuereb  – 12 ta` Marzu 1973), spedjenti fis-sens 
meta l-kwestjoni involuta fil-kawza pendenti 
quddiem qorti ohra tkun tali li d-decizjoni tista` 
tinfluwixxi l-meritu tal-azzjoni prezenti (ara – 
Galea vs Galea  – Appell Inferjuri – 23 ta` April 
1955). 
 
Is-soprasessjoni tkun indikata ghal dawk il-kazi 
meta jkun hemm lok ghas-soluzzjoni ta` xi punt li 
minnu tiddependi necessarjament il-kontinwazzjoni 
tal-kawza li tigi soprasseduta sa dik is-soluzzjoni  
(ara – Azzopardi vs Critien pro et noe  – 
Prim`Awla tal-Qorti Civili – 12 ta` April 1962). 
 
Ikun hemm lok ghas-soprasessjoni meta l-ezitu tal-
kawza li tigi soprasseduta jkun jiddependi jew 
   
 68 almenu jkun jista` jiddependi mill-ezitu ta` kawza 
ohra. Kwindi ma jistax ikun hemm lok ghas-
soprasessjoni jekk ma tezistix din id-dipendenza je w 
almenu l-potenzjalita` ta` dipendenza ta` kawza fil -
konfront ta` ohra. (ara – Degaetano vs Galea et 
noe  – Appell Civili – 5 ta` Ottubru 1981). 
 
Qorti m`ghandhiex tordna s-soprasessjoni jekk il-
parti avversarja tkun sejra tbati pregudizzju. 
 
Is-soprasessjoni hija rimedju straordinarju u 
eccezzjonali, ghaliex tiffrena l-andament normali 
ta` kawza billi twaqqaf kawza. L-ispeditezza u l-
gustizzja jesigu illi kull kawza tigi deciza fi zmi en 
ragonevoli. Ghandha tigi applikata biss jekk hu 
necessarju fl-ahjar amministrazzjoni tal-gustizzja.  
(Kollez. Vol. XLI.I.507). 
 
L-ghoti tas-soprasessjoni tibqa` ghal kollox fid-
diskrezzjoni tal-qorti (Kollez. Vol XXXII.II.197) u  
tkun tiddependi mic-cirkostanzi partikolari u 
specjali ta` kull kaz (ara – Appell Civili – Grech 
noe vs Buttigieg et noe  – 26 ta` Marzu 1984).” 
 
Din il-Qorti tirriafferma l-principju li s-soprases sjoni huwa rimedju 
straordinarju li ghandu jigi applikat biss fejn iku n necessarju fl-interess tal-
ahjar amministrazzjoni tal-gustizzja.   
 
 
Issa tajjeb jinghad illi fi kwistjoni ta` gurisdizz joni jew inkompetenza 
ta` qorti, minhabba deroga li tinholoq bhala rizult at ta` kompetenza 
konkorrenti ta` qorti ta` gurisdizzjoni ohra, il-Ka p 12 jistabilixxi li l-fatt 
wahdu li jkun hemm qorti ohra barranija li jkollha gurisdizzjoni konkorrenti 
ma jeskludix a priori l-gurisdizzjoni tal-qrati ta` dawn il-Gzejjer. 
 
 
Fis-sentenza ta` din il-Qorti diversament presjedut a tal-11 ta` Gunju 
2013 fil-kawza Dr Kenneth Grima noe vs Monet Limited et , inghad illi l-
Art 742(2) tal-Kap 12 japplika fejn ikun hemm diga`  kawza dwar l-istess 
haga jew konnessa maghha li qeghda tinstema` minn q orti barranija. Inghad 
ukoll illi  jekk ma jkunx hemm kawza bhal dik diga`  mibdija – del resto kif 
   
 69 inhi din tal-lum – jidher li s-setgha li qorti Malt ija tqis u tisma` l-kawza 
tiddependi mill-kriterji li jsejsu l-gurisdizzjoni tal-qrati taghna skont l-Art  
742(1) tal-Kap 12.   
 
 
Meta tqis il-fatti tal-kaz tal-lum, din il-Qorti ma  ssibx li hemm 
lok ghall-applikazzjoni tal-Artikolu 27 u 28 tal-Ko nvenzjoni billi ma 
hemm ebda dipendenza ta` kawza fil-konfront ta` ohr a.  L-esitu tal-
proceduri odjerni mhuwiex ser jincidi fuq il-proced imenti li huma 
pendenti – Malta jew fin-Norvegja.  Ghalhekk tqis il li l-Artikoli 27 u 
28 tal-Konvenzjoni ma japplikawx ghal din il-verten za. 
  
 
Il-konvenuti jaghmlu wkoll l-argument illi lanqas m a japplika ghall-
kaz odjern id-dispost tal-Artikolu 24(3) tar-Regola ment. 
 
 
Il-Qorti ssib illi s-subartikolu (3) tal-Artikolu 2 4 effettivament 
ma japplikax ghall-kaz odjern.   
 
 
Il-kawza tittratta l-legalita` tal-atti mwettqa.  I t-talba ghar-rexissjoni 
tar-registrazzjoni hija  konsegwenzjali ghas-sejbie n tal-illegalita` allegata.   
 
 
4. Punti ohra  
 
 
Fin-nota ta` sottomissjonijiet taghhom l-atturi qaj mu l-punt illi, dato 
ma non concesso , illi l-Artikolu 20 tal-BHC Co-operation Agreement  kellu 
japplika sabiex jirregola l-gurisdizzjoni, dan ghan du japplika biss ghar-
rigward tal-ksur ta` obbligi kontrattwali u mhux uk oll vis-a`-vis ksur ta` 
obbligi ex leg e u/jew ex delicto  u cioe n-nullita` tal-atti minhabba nuqqas ta` 
awtorizazzjoni mehtiega u l-kwistjoni tal-qerq.  Ki enu citati l-Artikolu 7(2) 
(ex. Art 5) tar-Regolament u l-Artikolu 5 (3) tal-K onvenzjoni. 
 
 
L-Artikolu 7 (2) tar-Regolament  jitkellem dwar : 
 
   
 70 “fi kwistjonijiet li ghandhom x`jaqsmu ma` tort, del itt 
jew kwazi delitt, fil-qrati tal-post fejn l-avvenim ent 
dannuz jkun twettaq jew jista` jitwettaq ” 
 
 
L-Artikolu 5 (3)  tal-Konvenzjoni  jitkellem dwar: 
 
“f`materji relatati ma` responsabbiltà ghal danni, 
delitti civili jew kwazi-delitti civili, fil-qrati tal-post 
fejn l-incident dannuz sehh jew jista` jsehh ” 
 
 
Il-konvenuti laqghu ghall-punt sollevat mill-atturi  billi dahlu funditus  
fil-kwestjoni.  Ghamlu l-argument illi l-Art 5(3) j applika meta l-proceduri 
huma ntizi li jwasslu ghal-likwidazzjoni tad-danni.   Fatt dan, illi kif tajjeb 
jargumentaw il-konvenuti, mhuwiex il-kaz fil-proced uri odjerni.  L-argument 
tal-konvenuti ikompli fis-sens illi kwistjonijiet r elattivi ghal delitt jew kwazi-
delitt jaqghu biss taht din il-kappa meta l-kwistjo ni principali ma tkunx 
naxxenti minn kuntratt.  Interessanti kienet id-dec izjoni li tat il-CJEU fil-21 
ta` April 2016 fil-kawza fl-ismijiet Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur 
Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte 
Gesellschaft mbH v Amazon EU Sàrl and Others  (C-572 /14) fejn inghad: 
 
“28  Thus, art.5(3) of Regulation 44/2001 lays down 
a rule of special jurisdiction under which “in 
matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict”, “a 
person domiciled in a Member State may, in 
another Member State, be sued … in the courts 
for the place where the harmful event occurred 
or may occur”. 
 
29  The rule of special jurisdiction laid down by t hat 
provision must be interpreted independently and 
strictly (see judgments of 28 January 2015 in 
Kolassa v Barclays Bank Plc (C-375/13) 
EU:C:2015:37 at [43], and 21 May 2015 in 
Cartel Damage Claims(CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide 
SA v Akzo Nobel NV (C-352/13) EU:C:2015:335; 
[2015] Q.B. 906 at [37]).  
 
   
 71 30  In that connection, it must be recalled that, 
according to settled case law, the rule of 
jurisdiction laid down in art.5(3) of Regulation 
44/2001 is based on the existence of a 
particularly close connecting factor between the 
dispute and the courts of the place where the 
harmful event occurred or may occur, which 
justifies the attribution of jurisdiction to those 
courts for reasons relating to the sound 
administration of justice and the efficacious 
conduct of proceedings (see judgments of 16 May 
2013 in Melzer EU:C:2013:305 at [26]; 3 October 
2013 in Pinckney [2013] E.C.D.R. 15 at [27]; 5 
June 2014 in Coty Germany EU:C:2014:1318 at 
[47]; 22 January 2015 in Hejduk [2015] 
E.C.D.R. 10 at [19]; and 28 January 2015 in 
Kolassa EU:C:2015:37 at [46]).  
 
31  In matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-
delict, the courts for the place where the harmful 
event occurred are usually the most appropriate 
for deciding the case, in particular on the 
grounds of proximity and ease of taking evidence 
(see judgments of 25 October 2012 in Folien 
Fischer AG v Ritrama SpA (C-133/11) 
EU:C:2012:664; [2013] Q.B. 523 at [38]; 16 May 
2013 in Melzer EU:C:2013:305 at [27]; 18 July 
2013 in ÖFAB, Ostergotlands Fastigheter AB v 
Koot (C-147/12) [2016] E.C.D.R. 23 395 [2016] 
E.C.D.R., Part 5 © 2016 Thomson Reuters 
(Professional) UK Limited EU:C:2013:490; 
[2015] Q.B. 20 at [50]; and 21 May 2015 in CDC 
Hydrogen Peroxide EU:C:2015:335 at [40]).  
 
32  According to settled case law, the concept of 
“matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict” 
covers all actions which seek to establish the 
liability of a defendant and do not concern 
“matters relating to a contract” within the 
meaning of art.5(1)(a) of Regulation 44/2001 
(see judgments of 27 September 1988 in Kalfelis 
   
 72 v Bankhaus Schroder Munchmeyer Hengst & Co 
(t/a HEMA Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH) 
(189/87) [1988] E.C.R. 5565 at [17] and [18]; 13 
March 2014 in Brogsitter v Fabrication de 
Montres Normandes EURL (C-548/12) 
EU:C:2014:148 at [20]; and 28 January 2015 in 
Kolassa v Barclays Bank Plc (C-375/13) 
EU:C:2015:37 at [44]).  
 
… 
 
35  Although art.5(1)(a) of Regulation 44/2001 does  
not require the conclusion of a contract, it is 
nevertheless essential, for that provision to 
apply, to identify an obligation, since the 
jurisdiction of the national court under that 
provision is determined by the place of 
performance of the obligation in question. Thus, 
the concept of “matters relating to contract” 
within the meaning of that provision is not to be 
understood as covering a situation in which 
there is no obligation freely assumed by one 
party towards another (see judgment of 14 
March 2013 in Česka spořitelna as v Feichter (C-
419/11) EU:C:2013:165:165 at [46]).  
 
36  Consequently, the application of the rule of 
special jurisdiction providing for matters 
relating to a contract in art.5(1)(a) of Regulation  
44/2001 presupposes the establishment of a 
legal obligation freely consented to by one person 
towards another and on which the claimant`s 
action is based (see judgments of 14 March 2013 
in Česká spořitelna EU:C:2013:165 at [47], and 
28 January 2015 in Kolassa EU:C:2015:37 at 
[39]).  
 
… 
 
39  Secondly, it must be determined whether a claim  
such as that at issue in the main proceedings 
   
 73 aims to establish the liability of the defendant, 
within the meaning of the case law cited in [32] 
of the present judgment. 
 
40  Such is the case where a “harmful event”, withi n 
the meaning of art.5(3) of Regulation 44/2001, 
may be imputed to the defendant.  
 
41  Liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict can o nly 
arise provided that a causal connection can be 
established between the damage and the event in 
which that damage originates (see judgments of 
30 November 1976 in Handelswekerij GJ Bier 
BV v Mines de Potasse d`Alsace SA (21/76) 
[1976] E.C.R. 1735 at [16], and 396 Austro-
Mechana v Amazon [2016] E.C.D.R., Part 5 © 
2016 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK 
Limited 5 February 2004 in Danmarks 
Rederiforening v LO Landsorganisationen i 
Sverige (C-18/02) [2004] E.C.R. I-1417 at [32]). ” 
 
 
Premess dan kollu, il-Qorti tosserva illi fil-kaz i n esami l-agir lamentat 
huwa strettament marbut mal-obbligi kontrattwali.  Dan johrog ben car mill-
BHC Co-operation Agreement.  Tghodd partikolarment il-klawzola 4 tal- 
ftehim intitolata “ Shareholders ”.  Din il-klawzola hija centrali ghal din il-
vertenza tant illi l-atturi stess jibnu l-kaz taghh om fuqha.  M`ghandux ikun 
hemm dubju illi l-kwistjoni tal-lum tittratta dwar obbligi kontrattwali u 
ghalhekk f`dan l-isfond trid tigi trattata l-kwistj oni tal-gurisdizzjoni tal-
Qorti. 
 
 
Jibqa` x`jigi determinat jekk il-Qrati Maltin ghand homx gurisdizzjoni 
a bazi tal-Artikolu 24 2) tar-Regolament.   
 
 
Li trid tara l-Qorti huwa jekk il-proceduri ghandho mx bhala l-obbjettiv 
principali (“ principally concerned ”) taghhom il-validita` tad-decizjoni tal-
organi tal-kumpanniji. 
 
 
   
 74 Analizzati bir-reqqa c-cirkostanzi partikolari illi  jsawwru din il-
vertenza, il-Qorti hija konkordi mal-atturi illi l- objettiv ewlieni ta` dawn il-
proceduri huwa l-validita` tad-decizjoni tal-organi  tal-kumpannija.   
 
 
Ghalhekk, dawn il-proceduri jikkwalifikaw taht dak ravvizat fit-
termini tal-Artikolu 24 (2) tar-Regolament. 
 
 
Stabbilit dan, u billi tissussisti raguni sufficjen ti a tenur tal-
Artikolu 24(2) tar-Regolament u l-Artikolu 22(2) ta l-Konvenzjoni, 
ghall-gurisdizzjoni esklussiva tal-Qrati fejn il-ku mpannija ghandha 
s-sede taghha, l-ghazla tal-gurisdizzjoni kif mifte hma bejn il-partijiet 
m`ghandiex tapplika.   
 
 
Il-Qorti hija tal-fehma illi ghandha tieqaf hawn dw ar dan il-punt billi 
kunsiderazzjonijiet ulterjuri ghar-rigward ikunu in utli. 
 
 
In vista tal-assjem tal-premess, din il-Qorti tqis illi ghandha 
gurisdizzjoni esklussiva sabiex tittratta u tiddeci edi din il-kawza. 
 
 
5. Choice of Law  
 
 
Il-konvenuti jaghmlu insistenza fuq il-klawsola dwa r choice of law -  
Artikolu 19 tal-BHC Co-operation Agreement.  Madana kollu nonostante l-fatt 
illi kien jinkombi fuqhom l-oneru illi jgibu prova illi l-istat tad-dritt Norvegiz 
huwa differenti mid-dritt Malti m`ghamlu xejn minn dan.  Mhuwiex kompitu 
ta` din il-Qorti illi taghmel tajjeb hi ghal fejn n aqsu l-konvenuti. 
 
 
Fi kwalunkwe kaz, il-kaz tal-lum huwa bbazat fuq ag ir abbuziv u 
llegali ta` Marks, li jmur ben oltre t-termini ta` dak li kien pattwit bejn il-
partijiet.  Ghalhekk mhux kwistjoni tal-applikazzjo ni tac- choice of law  clause.   
 
 
Il-Qorti zzid tosserva illi abbazi tal-gurisprudenz a sovracitata, 
partikolarment ghad-decizjoni fil-kawza Koza Ltd and Anor vs Akcil and 
   
 75 Ors , stabbilit illi l-Qrati Maltin ghandhom gurisdizzj oni esklussiva a tenur 
tal-Artikolu 24(2) tar-Regolament u l-Artikolu 22(2 ) tal-Konvenzjoni, 
ghandha tapplika l-ligi Maltija. 
 
 
L-ewwel eccezzjoni preliminari qeghda tkun respinta  fl-intier 
taghha. 
 
 
VI.  It-tieni (2) eccezzjoni preliminari  
 
  
  Il-konvenuti jikkontendu illi BHC ma setghetx tip procedi bil-kawza 
odjerna peress illi ma hemmx l-awtorizazzjoni necessarja fuq livell ta`  
socjeta` . 
  
 
L-atturi jikkontendu illi bhala effett tad-digriet interim  li nghata minn 
din il-Qorti fil-kawza fl-ismijiet Av Jonathan Abela Fiorentino noe vs Vroon 
Containers B.V. (Rik. Nru. 304/16 JZM)  fil-21 ta` Gunju 2017, BHC ghandha 
kull dritt tipprocedi b`kawza. 
 
 
 Il-Qorti sejra tirreferi ghall-parti operattiva ta ` l-interim order  : 
 
“tordna bhala mizura interim illi b`effett mil-lum u  ghaz-zmien kollu li 
tibqa` pendenti l-kawza bejn l-istess partijiet bin -numru 304/16 JZM,  Vroon 
Containers B.V. u Herman Marks m`ghandhom bl-ebda m od jippartecipaw 
fit-tehid tad-decizjonijiet da parti ta` Balticmax Holding Company Limited 
(C70765) in konnessjoni ma` materji li dwarhom Vroo n Containers B.V. 
ikollha konflitt ta` interess, inkluz decizjonijiet  dwar kawzi u proceduri legali 
fil-konfront tal-istess Vroon Containers B.V. u Her man Marks, u offerti u 
trasferimenti ta` ishma, u dan sabiex jitharsu l-in teressi ta` Balticmax 
Holding Company Limited (C70765). ” 
 
 
Il-provvediment huwa car u inekwivoku. 
 
 
BHC kellha r-rekwiziti kollha li tkun parti fil-kaw za tal-lum. 
 
   
 76  
Il-Qorti ma ssibx illi hemm konflitt ta` nteress be jn Sterling u Marsoft.  
Marsoft ghandha interess dirett fil-kawza billi bl- azzjonijiet ta` Marks kienet 
svestita minn jeddijiet taghha fir-rigward ta` AC1.   Ma jistax jonqos illi anke 
Sterling qua direttur ghandu nteress. 
 
 
L-azzjoni kif intavolata setghet tigi proposta bhal a kawza ta` aktar 
minn attur wiehed.  Il-konferma bil-gurament saret minn attur minnhom kif 
tippermetti l-ligi. 
 
 
It-tieni (2) eccezzjoni preliminari  qeghda tkun re spinta wkoll. 
 
 
VII. Il-mertu  
 
 
L-inkartament voluminuz illi jifforma l-atti ta` di n il-kawza joffri 
kwadru tar-relazzjonijiet kummercjali ta` bejn Mars oft u Vroon.  Mill-atti 
tohrog stampa cara tal-vertenzi kollha u tad-dizgwi d bejn Sterling u Marks.  
Madanakollu tressqu provi li fil-verita` jmorru lil  hinn mill-kuntest tal-
vertenza.  Din il-Qorti mhijiex sejra tissindaka da k li kien deciz minn organi 
gudizzjarjo ohra.  Fl-istess waqt tghid illi dak li  kien deciz u sar res judicata  
ghandu jigi rispettat mill-parti sokkombenti.  Tghi d ukoll illi ghandha 
tesercita kawtela fil-kaz ta` kawzi li ghadhom pend enti.  Il-Qorti sejra 
tattjeni ruha strettament mal-kompitu kif adita fil -mertu. 
 
 
  Wara li ghamlet esami akkurat tal-atti, il-Qorti hija konkordi dwar il-
fatt illi sehhew numru ta` vjolazzjonijiet da parti  ta` Marsoft u ta` BHC ghal 
dak pattwit fil-BHC Co-operation Agreement ; ghalhe kk il-kawzi li saru Oslo. 
Din l-inadempjenza pprecipitat is-sitwazzjoni lejn in-negattiv, u gabet tilwim 
u inkwiet bejn id-diretturi  Sterling u Marks. Jirr izulta Sterling ha pozizzjoni 
fis-sens illi l-hlas favur Vroon kif pattwit fil-BH C Co-operation Agreement 
ma kellux isir ghaliex ghalkemm kien miftiehem illi  kellhom jigu akkwistati 
32 bastiment, effettivament kienu akkwistati inqas bastimenti minhabba 
nuqqas ta` likwidita`.  Din is-sitwazzjoni gieghlet  lil Vroon tistitwixxi 
procedura arbitrali kontra BHC ghall-hlas tad-debit u u kontra Marsoft ghall- 
inadempjenza kontrattwali taghha.  Il-proceduri kie nu decizi favur Vroon. 
 
   
 77  
Is-sitwazzjoni pprecipitat ulterjorment meta waqt l aqgha li saret fis-6 
ta` April 2017 id-diretturi ma setghux jaqblu dwar il-pass illi kien imiss.  
Filwaqt illi l-minuti tal-laqgha jixhdu illi l-prop osta ta` Sterling ma kenitx 
accettata, ma jghidux l-istess dwar il-proposta ta`  Marks ghall-finanzjament.  
Effettivament il-minuti lanqas ma jghidu li l-propo sti ta` Marks gew 
accettati.  Fil-fatt gie registrat nuqqas ta` qbil min-naha ta` Sterling ghall-
proposti ta` Marks. 
 
 
Minn kif zvolgiet is-sitwazzjoni jidher bil-wisq ev identi illi t-theddida 
ta` Sterling illi kien ser imexxi bi proceduri ghal  xoljiment u stralc ma nizlitx 
tajjeb ma` Marks.  Ghalhekk, kif del resto  accetta huwa stess, gab wahdu  fis-
sehh il-proposti kollha illi kienet ressqet Vroon f il-laqgha tas-6 ta` April 2017.  
Fil-fatt attwa l-proposti bir-registrazzjoni tal-at ti relattivi l-ghada stress tal-
laqgha.  Marks ma ghamel ebda sforz sabiex jinnega li agixxa unilateralment 
u allura abbusivament.  Anzi sostna li huwa agixxa fl-ahjar interess ta` BHC 
kontra l-agir ta` Sterling.  Marks imputa li Sterli ng ried ixekkel il-hidma ta` 
l-kumpanniji.   
 
 
Il-provi illi tressqu ma jhallu ebda dubju illi Mar ks innifsu iffirma u 
ssottometta ghar-registrazzjoni l-atti rizultanti m ill-istess dokumenti.   
 
 
Issir referenza ghax-xiehda li ta fil-kawza Rik. Nr u. 304 /16 JZM kopja 
ta` liema kienet esebita bhala parti mill-kawza tal -lum (fol. 1494-1499) :- 
 
Dr Richard Camilleri : … Mr Marks, DOK AA13 is Form T, which is 
a notification of the transfer of all the ordinary shares which BHC has in AC1 
to Vroon.  Can you tell me how that came about? 
 
Xhud : Yes. 
 
Dr Richard Camilleri : Can you explain to the Court what you did? 
 
Xhud : I sold the shares. 
 
Dr Richard Camilleri : You sold the shares as a director of BHC to 
Vroon, of which you are a group director? 
 
   
 78 Xhud : Of which I am director too, yes. 
 
Dr Richard Camilleri : And did you ask for authorisation? Did you 
obtain authorisation? 
 
Xhud : From whom? 
 
Dr Richard Camilleri : From the Board of BHC. 
 
Xhud : No, and not from the shareholders either. 
 
… 
 
Dr Richard Camilleri : These were all the ordinary shares which 
BHC had in AC1.  Is that correct? 
 
Xhud : Yes, that`s correct. 
 
Dr Richard Camilleri : The only voting shares. 
 
Xhud : That`s also correct. 
 
Dr Richard Camilleri : And by this move what are the consequesnces? 
 
Xhud : That the voting control of the shares would come with Vroon 
Containers … 
 
Qorti : … is Dr Camilleri correct when he states that in actual fact 
Marsoft, through that procedure, was put off comple tely out of AC1 or not? 
 
Xhud : That`s correct. 
 
Dr Richard Camilleri : And you also appointed a second director, who 
is a Vroon employee, no? 
 
Xhud : But I did after this. 
 
Dr Richard Camilleri : At the same time, DOK AA15.  Can you see it? 
 
   
 79 Xhud : On the same day we issued new shares, as we had a grred with 
the bank, 50,000 new shares, or promised the bank, and we appointed Stefan 
Quist as a director to AC1 .”   
 
 
L-atturi jikkontendu illi l-agir ta` Marks jikkosti twixxi vjolazzjoni ta` 
obbligi naxxenti ex contractu , ex lege  u ex delicto . 
 
 
Relattivament ghall-obbligi ex contractu , issir referenza ghal klawsola 
4 tal-BHC Co-operation Agreement li hija cara.  Ma hemmx dubju li l-
firmatarji kollha kieku konkordi illi kull decizjon i rigwardanti l-ishma kellha 
tittiehed b`decizjoni unanima tal-Bord.  L-istess j ghodd ghall-hatra tat-tielet 
direttur fuq il-Bord.   
 
 
L-istess jirrizulta mill-Artikolu 60 tal-M&A tal-ku mpannija li jesigi l-
approvazzjoni tal-anqas zewg terzi tal-membri fuq i l-Bord tad-Diretturi 
kemm ghaz-zieda u kif ukoll ghat-tnaqqis tal- authorised  jew l- issued share  
capital  kif ukoll ghall-emendi fl-istatut tal-kumpannija. 
 
 
B`hekk bil-fatt illi Marks wettaq atti b`mod unilat erali sabiex 
jiffavorixxi azzjonista partikolari, l-istess azzjo nista li kien hatru bhala 
direttur fil-Bord, u allura agixxa minghajr l-appro vazzjoni tal-Bord, huwa 
wettaq ksur ta` obbligi ex contractu.  
 
 
Relattivament ghall-obbligi ex lege , l-atturi jaghmlu referenza ghall-
Art 136A(1) tal-Kap. 386   
 
 
Issir referenza ghall-kaz Howard v Herrigel  (1991) (2) SA 660 (A) 
fejn inghad: 
 
“At common law, once a person accepts appointment 
as a director, he becomes a fiduciary in relation t o the 
company and is obliged to display the utmost good 
faith towards the company and in his dealings on it s 
behalf. That is the general rule and its applicatio n to 
any particular incumbent of the office of director must 
   
 80 necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances i f 
each .”  
 
 
Hemm ukoll l- Art 136A(3)(e) tal-Kap 386.  
 
 
Id-disposizzjoni ghandha zewg aspetti : 
 
i) fejn diretturi jagixxu ultra vires  il-poteri lilhom konferiti bis-
sahha tal-istatut tal-kumpannija jew tal-ligi ; u  
 
i)  fejn diretturi juzaw il-poteri lilhom konferiti gha l skopijiet 
ulterjuri. 
 
 
Dwar esercizzju ta` setghat ultra vires , issir referenza ghas-sentenza li 
tat il-Qorti tal-Kummerc fl-14 ta` Gunju 1951 fil-k awza fl-ismijiet Giovanni 
Anastasi noe vs Kaptan Serafino Xuereb et , fejn inghad : 
 
 “Issa, skond l-artikolu 1763 Kodici Civili, Kap 23, 
(applikabbli ghas-socjetajiet kkemercjali taht l-ar t 
1741 idem u taht l-art 127 Kap 17 Ediz. Riv.), jekk  
ma jkunx hem ftehim xort`ohra, il-jeddijiet setghat  u 
obbligi ta` dawn l-amministraturi huma regolati bha l 
fil-ka ta` mandtarju, u skond l-art 1965 Kap 23, fi l-
mandat jidhlu biss l-attijiet ta` amministrazzjoni.   
Issa, f`dan il-kaz ma kienx hemm ftehim xort`ohra, u 
ghalhekk ghandu jigi ritenut li d-directors kellhom  
biss poteri ta` amministrazzjoni.  Lanqas jista` ji gi 
estiz il-mandat taghhom in forza ta` dak li tissejj ah 
“implied authority”; ghaliex kif josserva l-Bowstea d 
“Law of Agency”, p. 79 din l-“implied authority” ta ` 
“general agent” qatt ma tista` tigi estiza “outside  the 
ordinary scope of his employment and duties”.  Issa , 
ma jistax jigi negat li d-decizjoni li ttiehdet f`d an il-
kaz, … kienet toltrepassa ghal kollox il-limit ta` 
semplici amministrazzjoni. Decizjoni simili ma 
kienetx tmiss lid-“directors”, imma evidentment 
kienet tmiss lix-“shareholders” f`general meeting ( ara 
ghal dik li hi ligi Ingliza, sect. 278 (1) (b) Comp anies 
   
 81 Act, 1948).  Argument sussidjarju ghal din il-
konkluzjoni, ghalkemm appena bzonnu, huwa illi l-
istess kontraenti, meta riedu jirregolaw il-
“kontinwazzjoni” tas-socjeta`, fil-klawsola 4 tal-
kuntratt issubordinaw id-decizjoni dwar dina l-
kontinwazzjoni mhux lill-Board of Directors, imam 
lix-“sharholders” f`”general meeting”.  Mela hu log iku 
li wiehed jargumenta li, fil-hsieb tal-kontraenti f `dak 
l-att, decizjoni simili ma ghandhiex tigi mehuda mi ll-
Board of Directors, imma mix-“shareholders” 
f`”general meeting”.  Ghalhekk, fil-fehma ta` l-
Imhallef sedenti, dik id-decizjoni tal-Board of 
Directors kienet invalida fiha nfisha, ghaliex “ult ra 
vires” . 
 
 
Il-Qorti taghmel referenza ghall-principju li jemer gi mill- Art 137(4)  
tal-Kap 386 , fejn direttur huwa projbit milli jagixxi ultra vires  il-poteri lilu 
konferiti bl-istatut tal-kumpannija, u ghalhekk ma jistax jaghmel atti  
minghajr l-approvazzjoni tal-organi kostitwiti tal- kumpannija.  Ghalhekk 
fejn tinsorgi sitwazzjoni bhal din, il-validita` ta l-azzjoni tista` tigi mpunjata 
abbazi tas-subincizi (4), (5) u (6) tal-Art 137 tal -Kap 386.  Direttur illi jagixxi 
ultra vires  jista` jkun li jwiegeb ghal danni skont l- Art 147(1) tal-Kap 386 . 
 
 
Dwar l-uzu ta` setghat ghal skopijiet ulterjuri, Andrew Muscat  fil-
ktieb tieghu Principles of Maltese Company Law  (MUP – 2007 – Pg. 439) 
ighid :- 
 
“The improper purpose will always be to feather the 
directors` own nests or to preserve their own contr ol, 
in which case it will also be a breach of the duty to act 
honestly and in good faith in the best interst of t he 
company.  Yet even if the directors act honestly fo r 
what they believe to be in the best interst of the 
company, they may still be liable for breach of dut y if 
they exercise their powers for a purpose different from 
that for which the powers would have been conferred  
upon them. ” 
 
 
   
 82 Issir ukoll referenza ghad-decizjoni fil-kaz Treasure Trove 
Diamonds Ltd v Hyman  (1928 AD 464 at 479) fejn inghad : 
 
“… and the directors as occupying a fiduciary 
position towards the company must exercise those 
powers bona fide in the best interest of the compan y 
as a whole, and not for an ulterior motive  …”  
 
 
Fuq l-istess linja kien il-pronunzjament fil-kaz In Re Smith and 
Fawcett Ltd  [1942] Ch 304, [1942] 1 All ER 542 fejn Lord Green e tenna : 
 
“The principles to be applied in cases where the 
articles of a company confer a discretion on direct ors 
... are, for present purposes, free from doubt. The y 
must exercise their discretion bona fide in what th ey 
consider – not what a court may consider – is in th e 
interests of the company, and not for any collatera l 
purpose.  The question, therefore, simply is whethe r 
on the true construction of the particular article the 
directors are limited by anything except their bona  
fide view as to the interests of the company .” 
 
 
 Fil-kawza Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd  [1974] AC 
821, [1974] UKPC 3, Lord Wilberforce osserva:  
 
“… to start with a consideration of the power whose  
excerise is in question …  Having ascertained, on a 
fair view, the nature of this power, and having 
defined as can best be done in the light of modern 
conditions the, or some, limits within which it may  be 
exercised, it is then necessary for the court, if a  
particular exercise of it is challenged, to examine  the 
substantial purpose for which it was exercised, and  to 
reach a conclusion whether that purpose was proper 
or not. In doing so it will necessarily give credit  to the 
bona fide opinion of the directors, if such is foun d to 
exist, and will respect their judgment as to matter s of 
management; having done this, the ultimate 
conclusion has to be as to the side of a fairly bro ad 
   
 83 line on which the case falls`.  
 
… when a dispute arises whether directors of a 
company made a particular decision for one purpose 
or for another, or whether, there being more than o ne 
purpose, one or another purpose was the substantial  
or primary purpose, the court, in their Lordships` 
opinion, is entitled to look at the situation objec tively 
in order to estimate how critical or pressing, or 
substantial or, per contra, insubstantial an allege d 
requirement may have been. If it finds that a 
particular requirement, though real, was not urgent , 
or critical, at the relevant time, it may have reas on to 
doubt, or discount, the assertions of individuals t hat 
they acted solely in order to deal with it, particu larly 
when the action they took was unusual or even 
extreme.` 
 
… it is correct to say that where the self-interest  of the 
directors is involved, they will not be permitted t o 
assert that their action was bona fide thought to b e, or 
was, in the interest of the company` pleas to this effect 
have invariably been rejected just as trustees who buy 
trust property are not permitted to assert that the y 
paid a good price.  No more, in their Lordships` vi ew, 
can this be done by the use of a phrase – such as 
`bona fide in the interest of the company as a whol e` 
or `for some corporate purpose. 
 
… 
 
The question which arises is sometimes not a questi on 
of the interest of the company at all, but a questi on of 
what is fair as between different classes of 
shareholders .`  
 
 
Brenda Hannigan , fil-ktieb Company Law  (OUP – 2016 – Pg. 202-
203) tosserva :- 
 
   
 84  “Having carried out this exercise and identified the  
actual purpose for which the power was exercised, 
that actual purpose then has to be measured against  
the range of permissible purposes for the exercise of 
that power, as indicated by the articles or ascerta ined 
by the court, in order to decide whether that actua l 
exercise was proper.  Provided that the substantial  
purpose for which the power was exercised is a prop er 
purpose, the exercise of the power is not invalidat ed 
by the presence of some other imporper, but 
insubstantial, purpose.  For example, some incident al 
benefit obtained by a director does not invalidate the 
exercise of the power unless his self-interest was the 
substantial purpose for the exercise of the power.  
Equally, if the substantial purpose was improper, a  
director`s honest belief that he was acting in the 
interests of the company, is insufficient to valida te the 
exercise of the power. 
 
… 
 
As is clear from Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol 
Petroleum Ltd the courts are alert to attempts by t he 
directors to manipulate control of the company by t he 
improper exercise of the power to allot shares. ” 
 
 
L-atturi jsostnu illi l-agir ta` Herman Marks sar t otalment in mala fede  
b`mod abbuziv, illegali u kontra l-obbligi mposti m il-ligi fuq id-diretturi 
inkluz l-Art 136A tal-Kap 386 . 
 
 
Inghad mill-atturi li l-iskop ewlieni ta` Herman Ma rks u Vroon kien 
illi jiksbu kontroll shih.  
 
 
 Ma hemmx dubju illi meta Marks wettaq l-atti mertu ta` din il-
vertenza huwa kien qieghed jagixxi unikament fl-int eressi ta` Vroon u sabiex 
jissalda d-debitu jew parti minnu li BHC kellha u g had ghandha ma` Vroon.  
Fil-fatt kemm Marks kif ukoll Stefan Quist xehdu il li d-dejn ta` BHC jaqbez 
il-valur tal-assi illi ghandha l-istess BHC.   
   
 85  
 
 Marks u Vroon ghandhom kull interess illi jithalls u lura u li 
jezegwixxu s-sentenzi miksuba favur taghhom fin-Nor vegja.  Dan ma jaghti l-
ebda dritt lil Marks li jaghmel dak li rrizulta li ghamel.  Marks qua wiehed 
mid-diretturi ta` BHC kiser id-dmirijiet tieghu sab iex jassigura l-interessi ta`  
Vroon u gie f `konflitt ta` interess mill-aktar lampanti.  
 
 
Dan l-agir huwa sanzjonat ukoll mill- Art 136A tal-Kap 386 . 
 
 
 
 
Decide  
 
 
 
Ghar-ragunijiet kollha premessi, il-Qorti qeghda ta qta` u 
tiddeciedi din il-kawza billi :- 
 
 
 
Tichad l-eccezzjonijiet kollha. 
 
 
Tilqa` l-ewwel u t-tieni talbiet fl-intier taghhom kif dedotti. 
 
 
Tilqa` t-tielet talba.  Tahtar lill-Avukat Dottor A nna Mifsud 
Bonnici sabiex tidher bhala kuratur ghall-eventwali  kontumaci fuq l-
atti ta` rexxissjoni li ghalihom tirreferi l-ewwel talba.  Tordna li 
dawn l-atti ta` rexxissjoni jsiru fi zmien xahar mi l-lum. 
 
 
Tilqa` r-raba` u l-hames talbiet fl-intier taghhom kif dedotti. 
 
 
 Tordna lill-konvenuti Vroon Containers B.V. u Herm an Marks 
sabiex in solidum bejniethom ihallsu l-ispejjez kollha ta` din il-
   
 86 kawza, inkluzi dawk tal-Mandat ta` Inibizzjoni Numr u 734 /17 SM 
mahrug fl-14 ta` Gunju 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
Onor. Joseph Zammit McKeon 
Imhallef 
 
 
 
 
Amanda Cassar 
Deputat Registratur