A man whose property has been hit by precautionary warrants since 2008 after training for damages by a woman who was secretly filmed having sex when she was still a minor has failed in his offer to release his cash from the clutch of an attachment order.

In January, the man was one of three interviewees ordered together to pay € 32,656 to the victim in damages for the psychological trauma she suffered due to the ordeal she had faced some 15 years earlier when she was still a minor. .

She was secretly filmed having sex with her then-boyfriend and the indecent footage was subsequently copied onto CDs and put into circulation via a DVD store.

The accident had a negative impact on the victim who was certified to suffer from a 30% psychological weakness some five years after Calvary.

In awarding damages to the First Chamber, the Civil Court ruled in favor of a later assessment of the victim which certified a 6% weakness in view of the fact that over the years the woman had managed to overcome greatly trauma.

One of the respondents lodged an appeal, which led to a cross-appeal by the woman who called the court to confirm the 30% debility and to vary the compensation awarded for damages accordingly.

In July, the man filed an application to revoke the precautionary seizure order on his cash, claiming that if the victim’s appeal were upheld the 30% debility he was alleging would comes out to € 163,282 in damages.

That amount would be well covered by Fgura property which was guaranteed under an injunction and valued by its architect at € 200,000.

Because such property was sufficient to guarantee the woman’s claim, the seizure order on the man’s cash could be revoked, his lawyer argued.

However, the woman’s lawyers replied that the applicant had failed to produce evidence as to whether that property in Fgura was free and unobstructed, not burdened by loans or any obligations in favor of third parties.

Nor did it show the court whether the property was subject to a lease or any other concession in favor of a third party.

In the light of such considerations, the woman’s lawyers argued that the prospect of a forced need to sell such property through a judicial auction does not guarantee the same peace of mind as seized cash. under an attachment order.

The Court of Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti along with Judges Joseph R. Micallef and Tonio Mallia as members, upheld the woman’s arguments, noting that the value of the property alone was not enough to the court determines whether that property was offered. an adequate and sufficient alternative to the attachment order. Consequently the court rejected the man’s request to revoke the attachment order.

Attorneys Veronique Dalli and Andrew Saliba are assisting the woman.