The Court of Appeal said that the Tribunal had ignored the plea of prescription raised by defendant company. This was in breach of article 21(1) of the Consumer Affairs Act, which requires the Tribunal to decide any issues relating to prescription which may be raised before that Tribunal. The Court therefore annulled the decision of Tribunal.
The Court however on the basis of article 22(2) of the Consumer Affairs Act, choose to hear the case itself given that under that article, the Court of Appeal in annulling a Tribunal decision, is empowered to hear and determine the case itself. The Court first proceeded to consider the plea of prescription. In dismissing this plea the Court said that defendant company failed to produce evidence as to the period from when the period prescription was supposed to have commenced. The Court referred to article 78 of the Consumer Affairs Act, which provides that in cases where there is lack of conformity with the sample or with promised quality of the product being purchased, the period of prescription is considered to be suspended for the duration of the period during which negotiations are in course between the consumer and the trader. The Court noted that defendant company in these circumstances remained passive and did not submit any evidence to counter plaintiff’s contentions that the repairs undertaken did not rectify matters and that therefore plaintiff in such circumstances had every right on the basis of article 76 of the Consumer Affairs Act to seek the rescission of the contract and request a full refund of the sum paid for the said furniture. The Court however in its decision decided to deduct two hundred Maltese liri from the original sum claimed given that plaintiff had for time made use of the said furniture ordering that out of the total amount of one thousand and fifty Maltese liri, the amount of eight hundred and fifty Maltese liri be paid to plaintiff.