This case referred to a judgement delivered by the Small Claims Tribunal in January 2007 where it was stated that the possessions (coats etc) of plaintiffs amounting to Lm252.49 were stolen or lost from a New Year’s Eve party hosted at the Westin Dragonara Resort, St Julian’s while in a cloak room and hence under the care and custody of the defendant as the organiser of the same party.

The defendant had pleaded that:

• He was wrongly sued since the hotel in which the party was held was responsible for the cloak room

• He had paid, together with the other organiser, Lm500 as an insurance premium to provide further protection for the guests against possible theft or losses

• He was merely one of the promoters of the same party

• Plaintiffs were expecting the value of new garments when the lost/stolen ones were obviously used

On the night that the party was held, the cloakroom managed by the hotel itself was surrounded by many guests attending the same party, resulting in many garments (over 200) being lost or stolen.

The defendant basically argued that the hotel was to be sued for the value of the items lost/stolen as was done by various other aggrieved guests. He also stressed that he told the plaintiffs on many occasions that it was the hotel that was liable. Defendant claimed to have offered plaintiffs Lm150 as compensation merely to safeguard the name of the company and stressed that this was in no way tantamount to his admitting to the alleged liability.

It so transpired that plaintiffs had written to both the defendant and the hotel and since only the defendant replied, correspondence continued to be exchanged between them.

The Tribunal felt that although the defendant was properly sued as defendant, he had shown sufficient care and taken precautions to ensure the success of the party. It also stated that the cloakroom was not the responsibility of the same defendant but that of the hotel and hence, he should not be deemed liable for the losses of the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal claimed to find it hard to understand the reasoning of the Tribunal which stated that although the defendant was the proper defendant, yet the custody of the garments were not his responsibility qua organiser of the party. The Court felt that once the Tribunal deemed that plaintiffs had rightly sued the defendant, it should have been natural to assume that the only recognised link in existence was that between the guests and the same defendant and not the hotel.

The Court considered that the organisation of an event generally includes the care of garments of clients paying to attend such party. The Court also noted that the fact that the defendant had covered himself with an insurance policy was evidence that he recognised that the responsibility for the same cloakroom was precisely his. It was also highlighted that after this event, the defendant told the aggrieved guests to address their claims to him personally and not to the hotel or the insurance company.

Finally the Court contended that in cases like this, organisers of parties or any other events are deemed depositaries of objects entrusted to them by clients and as depositaries are obliged to exercise the diligence that would be used for personal belongings. This is stated in Article 1899 of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 – Laws of Malta) –

1899. A depositary must, for the custody of the thing deposited,use the same diligence which he uses for the custody of his own things.

The Court went on to say that in cases such as the one under examination, this obligation should be applied more rigorously. The Court hence contended that this was an obvious case of deposit. From the amount of claims made for the loss or theft of garments it was evident to the Court that the defendant qua organiser of the event and qua depositary, did not behave with the due diligence required by law. The defendant as a depositary that failed in his obligations to the detriment of his clients was responsible for the losses they incurred as a result of entrusting the same defendant with their possessions.

The Court did not deem this incident as a fortuitous event but a clear result of the defendants lack of care and diligence. The Court hence upheld the plaintiffs’ appeal and overturned the judgement of the Small Claims Tribunal stating that the Tribunal’s conclusions were unfounded. The Court of Appeal concluded by condemning the same defendant to the payment of the sum requested by plaintiffs together with interest and all Court expenses.