Labour MP’s €112,000 ‘debt’ confirmed by court

A €112,000 debt due by Labour MP Charles Mangion has been confirmed by a court after he failed to contest the creditor's court action.

The circumstances in which the debt came about does not emerge from court documents. Mangion is a notary public by profession.

The creditor, Joseph Seychell, had served Charles Mangion with a judicial letter with regards to the debt in January 2012 which, after being rendered executive, officially rendered Mangion his debtor to the tune of €82,500.

Seychell claimed that prior to the filing of the judicial letter, Mangion had acknowledged the debt by means of bills of exchange: for €58,000 and €24,000 respectively. Mangion, however had failed to contest or settle the amounts due by March 2015, by which time the accumulated legal interest on the agreements amounted to a total of €28,614.

In the judicial letter, the plaintiff had said that he had made several requests for payment to Mangion, but to no avail. Seychell had informed the court that with interest, the amount due stood at €112,002.43. He requested the court revive the  executive title created by the bills of exchange and take the necessary steps to order they be paid up.

In spite of being duly notified with this request, Mangion did not file a reply.

In his decision on the matter, Mr. Justice Lawrence Mintoff upheld the plaintiff's request and allowed the application of the executive title - allowing Seychell to, amongst other things, file garnishee orders over Mangion's accounts. 

The judge noted that Seychell was requesting the revival of an executive title whose period of validity had lapsed three years before, without it being enforced. 

The executive title granted by bills of exchange and promissory notes were regulated by the commercial code, said the judge, who held that the applicable legal disposition was "certainly not intended to allow the recomputation of the balance due to the applicant."

"Proceedings in terms of article 258(c)...[are] summary verification proceedings, solely intended to obtain the court's authorisation to reactivate an executive title  which had lapsed by the passage of three years...after it had been verified that the obligation to pay still existed."

In such proceedings, said the judge, it was not up to the court to carry out an accounting exercise and reach the amount due. Rather, "the exercise that must take place is more one of verification that payment is still outstanding... and that therefore an executive title in favour of the creditor still existed."