Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: Magro v Domenic Department Stores
    • Member State: Malta
    • Common Name:N/A
    • Decision type: Administrative decision in appeal
    • Decision date: 01/04/2016
    • Court: Court of Appeal (Civil, Inferior)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Polly Anne Magro
    • Defendant: Dominic Department Stores (DDS) Limited u Noel Gauci ezercenti l-kummerc Gava Interiors
    • Keywords: attributes of the trader, commercial guarantee, consumer rights, intermediary, liability, nature of the trader, seller
  • Directive Articles
    Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 4 Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 5, 1.
  • Headnote
    (1) The two year time period laid down in Article 78 of the Consumer Affairs Act, which implements Article 5 (1) of Directive 1999/44/EC into Maltese law, is a period of forfeiture not a period of prescription.
  • Facts
    The plaintiff instituted a case in the Consumer Claims Tribunal following the purchase and installation of a solar water heater from the defendant, which turned out to be defective while still under the 5-year guarantee. The defendant in turn claimed that this was merely an agent acting on behalf of Gava Interiors Company Limited. The latter claimed that there was no juridical relationship between it and the plaintiff, that it was DDS Ltd who had carried out the installation improperly and that Gava Interiors had provided a temporary remedy for the plaintiff. The Tribunal found for the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay back the full value of the solar water heater in return for the defective object; and the defendant appealed on the same grounds.
  • Legal issue
    The court rejected the claim by the defendant that the prescription period during which the plaintiff had to first raise an objection, had expired. The reasoning was based on the change in the wording of the law in Article 78 of the Consumer Affairs Act, which implements Article 5 (1) of Directive 1999/44/EC into Maltese law, which previously contained a specific mention that the 2 years during which the plaintiff may detect the defect in an object, is a prescriptive period.

    The court also rejected the claim by the defendant that Gava Interiors should have been accorded part of the fault, since the plaintiff had dealt only with DDS Ltd.
  • Decision

    (1) Is the two-year period under Article 78 of the Consumer Affairs Act, which implements Article 5 (1) of Directive 1999/44/EC into Maltese law, a period of prescription?

    URL: http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/courtservices/Judgements/search.aspx?func=all

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The defendant's appeal was rejected and the appealed decision was confirmed by the court.