This case was an appeal from a judgement delivered by the Small Claims Tribunal on 30 April 2008. The plaintiff had requested the tribunal to order the defendant to pay the sum of e3,494.06 allegedly due to him as consideration for director and camera services he rendered in a local television series.

The defendant, apart from opposing this claim, also questioned the very competence of the tribunal to deliver judgement on the matter.

The plaintiff claimed that he was appointed by the defendant to help her with a television series. The defendant was the producer of such series. The plaintiff was not paid for his services. Subsequently, a contract was drawn up between the parties regulating the provision of such services.

The defendant claimed that she was not satisfied with the quality of the services rendered by the plaintiff. She claimed the plaintiff had failed to give her the number of tapes agreed upon.

The tribunal heard all witnesses including an actress in the series who also helped with the editing of the programme since she worked in production and also lectures the subject at the University of Malta having about 14 years experience in the field. She claimed that the plaintiff’s work was not done properly rendering her editing job more arduous.

Rather than taking a day to a day and a half, it took her three to four days to edit a programme. Her main complaint was the fact that the plaintiff had only taken a single “take” of certain shots which is something rarely done in the field since various takes allow for the proper editing of a programme.

The tribunal had rejected the plaintiff’s claims and decided in favour of the defendant and claimed that the plaintiff had failed to act professionally particularly after the signing of the contract. The tribunal held that the defendant had proved to its satisfaction that the plaintiff had failed in his obligations as a director of the series particularly when he delivered incomplete or inadequate work to the defendant which led to the latter having to incur more costs in producing his work.

The plaintiff appealed to this decision claiming that the tribunal had failed to follow procedure and that it failed to deliver a just decision.

The Court rejected the first ground of appeal wherein the plaintiff claimed that there was a breach of one of the principles of natural justice, namely the principle of audi alteram partem which holds that both parties to a case have a right to be heard.

Regarding the second ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal made reference to Article 4.02 of the contract drawn up on 11 April 2002 wherein the plaintiff appellant guaranteed that “all services to which this agreement applies shall be performed diligently in a good workmanlike manner and to a high standard of professional competence and shall be suitable for the purposes specified in Article 1.00.” The latter mentioned article described the services that the plaintiff had to provide qua Director.

This article therefore confirmed that the plaintiff appellant was obliged to act in the manner defined in Article 1132 of the Civil Code (Chapter 16, Laws of Malta) which holds that “Saving any other provision of this Code relating to deposits, the degree of diligence to be exercised in the performance of an obligation, whether the object thereof is the benefit of only one of the parties, or of both, is, in all cases, that of a bonus paterfamilias as provided in article 1032.”

Article 1032(1) states that “A person shall be deemed to be in fault if, in his own acts, he does not use the prudence, diligence, and attention of a bonus paterfamilias.”

This level of diligence imposed by the law is therefore that level of diligence that a father of a good family would exercise.

The Court of Appeal, upon examination of the facts and the evidence brought forward by the witnesses held that the plaintiff failed to act in accordance with the contract and manifested a level of diligence below that of a bonus paterfamilias. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal rejected the claims of the plaintiff appellant, upheld the defendant’s pleas and confirmed the decision of the Small Claims Tribunal.