The Court of Appeal, presided by Mr Justice Raymond Pace, recently annulled a Mepa appeals board ruling that refused to sanction a penthouse at Xemxija even though a compliance certificate in its respect had been issued by the Mepa officer. The case was brought by Joseph Grima who pointed out that he and his wife had relied on the compliance certificate when they purchased the penthouse because Mrs Grima, a British national, had had problems with her former residence arising from similar circumstances. As a result she made sure to acquire this penthouse only after she was given a copy of the compliance certificate. The problem, as regards Mepa, regarded the set back on the façade and the absence of any set back at the back. The set back, in turn, was determined by the position of a lift well which served the rest of the flats in the building. The rest of the building had been sanctioned at the same time that the penthouse was not. In its judgement, the Appeals Court noted that the Mepa appeals board stated it had decided independently of the compliance certificate, so this meant it did not give the certificate due merit. This was wrong of the appeals board, and thus the Grima appeal was upheld.