SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1938 Supreme(SC) 21

Edgar Sammut and another – Appellant
Versus
Strickland – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Blount Petre and Co., Burchells, Cyril Salmon, Berriedale Keith , John Foster, Kemelm Preedy

Lord Maugham:-

This is an appeal from a judgment of His Majesty's Court of Appeal of Malta delivered on 4th March 1938, reversing the judgment given on 11th October 1937, by the Civil Court of Malta, First Hall. The appeal raises the question of the validity of a customs duty imposed under an Ordinance made by the Governor of Malta, namely the Ordinance No. 27 of 1936. The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the action, raised the question by importing certain articles of the value of 3s. 9d. suitable for use in connexion with Coronation festivities. The appellant, Edgar Sammut, a Collector of Customs, exacted a duty on these articles in terms of the Ordinance 27 of 1936. This duty was paid under protest, and on 21st April 1937, the action was commenced. The trial Judge decided that the Ordinance was valid, but the decision of the Court of Appeal was to the contrary effect. Hence the present appeal.

The nature of the dispute can be shortly stated. It was admitted by counsel for the respondent in his learned argument that the Island of Malta (which for the present purpose includes Gozo) became a British possession in the year 1813 under circumstances which their Lordships will consid































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top