John Patrick Hayman Et

vs

Edmond Espedito Mugliett Et

First Hall, Civil Court

Judge

Giannino Caruana Demajo

2 June 2006

This case concerned a joint bank account. The plaintiffs were heirs of Notary John Patrick Hayman who died in 2001.

The defendant and the deceased had various joint bank accounts in both their names. One of these, a savings account, was the subject of this case; it was in the name of Mr Edmond Espedito Mugliett & Dr John Hayman with Bank of Valletta plc. The defendant withdrew Lm40,500 from the account the day after Hayman’s death.

The plaintiffs demanded that the defendant credit the money to the account, together with interests accrued, however to no avail. They sued in the First Hall, Civil Court demanding such.

The defendant claimed the following:

•The plaintiffs had no juridical interest in suing as the interest had to be actual, real and personal.

•The bank account, although joint, contained money deposited that solely belonged to the defendant. Hayman was named professionally and held no personal interest in the account per se.

The defendants would prove this if and when the plaintiffs made a declaration that they indeed had an interest in the money involved or claimed a share of it.

The defendant had opened the account in his own name and that of the deceased not because the money belonged to both but because the defendant went overseas often and required someone to look after his accounts while abroad. Although the defendant need not have created such a joint account but merely given Notary Hayman his power of attorney, the defendant chose this method.

Apart from this account, there were other joint accounts involved among which were accounts of a company belonging to the defendant. In March 2001, the company sold immovable property for Lm45,000 paid by banker’s draft payable to the company. The defendant placed this draft in the account that the company had with Hayman but found that the account had been closed without his knowledge. He therefore deposited the draft together with other funds in the account contested in this case. The sum deposited amounted to Lm53,000. The day after Hayman’s death, the defendant withdrew Lm40,500 which apart from Lm18, was the available balance on that day.

The plaintiffs claimed that since the account was in the name of both Hayman and the defendant, the latter could not withdraw the money unilaterally after Hayman’s death. The defendant however, claimed that he could because the money was his.

Regarding the claim that there is a lack of judicial interest, the defendants held that the plaintiffs were not claiming the money within the account. The claim was to restore the money to the account so as to enable the rightful persons to withdraw it. The defendant stated that plaintiffs would have a judicial legal interest only if they showed that they were the persons entitled to take the money. The plaintiffs did not do the latter and did not show any sign of doing it later.

The Court stated that the plaintiffs’ interest in the case was clear: a bank account in the name of a person creates a prima facie presumption that the person holds an interest in the account and is entitled to it. This is a rebuttable presumption and may thus be disproved, however only by legal measures and not by unilateral behaviour of an individual/s.

In this case, the defendant acted unilaterally by withdrawing the balance of the account the day after Hayman’s death without the consent of Hayman’s successors. He changed a state of fact that at least prima facie, was deemed to be of interest to the notary, and after his death, his successors. The plaintiffs merely demanded the restoration of affairs to their original state so as to revive the presumption of their interest, which presumption would, if rebutted, be done so legally and not factually by a unilateral act i.e. per vie di diritto and not per vie di fatto as occurred when the defendant withdrew the cash.

It could not be contested that the plaintiffs had an interest. Although they were not claiming that a declaration be made as to who had a right to control the money, the defendants could have broadened the merits of the case by submitting proof that they had rights over the money because it belonged to them. However, although the defendants effectively said that the money deposited in the account was exclusively theirs, they went on to say that they would prove this when and if the plaintiffs ever made a judicial claim for the declaration that they held an interest or share in the money. The defendants were trying to shift the burden of proof onto the plaintiffs i.e. to show that, once the money was withdrawn, they had a right to a share of the money. The Court felt that it should not decide on the merits of who had rights over the money in the account but merely ordered that everything be returned to its original state i.e. to its status quo ante so that the decision be taken either by the parties together or by the Court, after procedures were adopted in line with the law and this not as a result of unilateral acts of one of the parties.

The Court ordered the return to the account of the Lm40,500 together with interests that accrued from the day funds were withdrawn to the day they would be re-deposited. Also, should the original account have been closed, then a new account should be opened in the names of the defendant and the plaintiffs as successors of the deceased.

This case may be the subject of an appeal.