Beachaven complex files injunction against proposed Xemxija mooring area

The owners of the Beachaven resort have filed a warrant of prohibitory injunction against the establishment of an organised mooring area in Xemxija which it says, appears to be going ahead despite the call for tenders having been cancelled. 

Lawyer Alex Scerri Herrera filed the injunction on behalf of Godwin and Jeanette Cutajar against the Malta Transport Authority and Harbour Management Ltd, over the project which was due to start by on Saturday. 

The injunction halts works established under the Local Notice to Mariners No 16 of 2021 and any other ancillary works regarding the management of the Organised Mooring Area and associated fairway for the mooring of small craft in the Xemxija mooring area. 

The Cutajars argued that they had been operating the Beachhaven resort for the past 55 years, offering commercial services relating to nautical sport and mooring of boats outside their premises. 

They exhibited a contract of ground rent dating back to 2005 which renews their title for 50 years, up till 2055. The Malta Transport Authority was aware of this, they said, having issued formal permission to the operators to run their business. 

But the authority had also issued a public call for proposals relating to the management of berthing for yachts in Xemxija and Salina in November 2009. The plaintiffs had made an offer and were informed that it had been accepted in March 2010. After this, the authority had demanded that the company pay a set of tariffs proposed by the authority. When the company refused, the authority had cancelled the public call. 

Beachaven are claiming that Harbour Management Ltd had filed civil proceedings against the Transport Authority in 2011, which were ceded in November 2020 after an agreement had been reached – after the call was cancelled. However, despite the cancellation, it appeared that there had in fact been an agreement between the defendants, despite there being no tender, argued Scerri Herrera. He informed the court that the plaintiffs would also be contesting this agreement. 

Proceedings before the Contracts Revision Board in this regard are also ongoing.