Murga Bar owner begins legal action over ‘unconstitutional’ tenancy termination

The owner of the Murga Bar is taking legal action against the Gibraltar Government, the Governor and the Attorney General in a dispute over the “unconstitutional” termination of his tenancy rights at the Victoria Stadium. 

The claim relates to the Murga Bar as well as a store and three kiosks within the stadium, which is due to be demolished to make way for a new Gibraltar FA national stadium that includes commercial and residential units. The Government as the landowner is required to hand over a vacated site under its agreement with the association. 

Lawyers for Allan Asquez, the owner of VSB Ltd, filed a constitutional motion in the Supreme Court claiming the certificate used under Section 66 (S66) of the Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA) to terminate his tenancy is incompatible with Gibraltar’s constitution. 

The Government had been negotiating a settlement for over a year with Allan Asquez, the owner of the Murga Bar, and said it had offered a reasonable compensation package for the loss of his business. 

But No.6 Convent Place said the financial settlement being requested by Mr Asquez was “extortionate and entirely unacceptable”, exceeding “any reasonable figure” calculated based on potential loss of earnings. 

Subsequently, the Governor – on application from the Gibraltar Government as landowner – issued a certificate under S66 of the LTA terminating the lease for the bar and three kiosks inside the sporting facility. The certificate allows for the compulsory acquisition of Government-owned property for redevelopment if the wider public interest requires it. 

The claim says that the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006 guarantees protection from deprivation of property except under strict conditions, including adequate compensation and judicial oversight. 

It adds that the Government and the Governor sought to override protections provided to tenants in the LTA by issuing the certificate under S66 without meeting procedural safeguards, compensation mechanisms, or judicial oversight as required under the Constitution and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Mr Asquez is seeking a declaration from the court that S66 of the LTA is unconstitutional and void. 

He is also seeking a declaration that the certificate used to terminate his tenancy is null, void, and of no legal effect. 

Further or alternative relief as the court deems just and equitable is also being sought by Mr Asquez. 

“This case raises fundamental constitutional issues regarding the supremacy of constitutional guarantees, the protection of property rights, and the compatibility of domestic law with Gibraltar’s constitutional framework and international obligations,” Charles Gomez & Co, the lawyers for Mr Asquez, said in the claim. 

The respondents have until February 25 to file and serve their evidence. 

The Government has said its position on the dispute remains unchanged in its response to the filing of the motion. 

“The Government's position remains exactly as stated previously and we will strenuously resist any application made by Mr Asquez that seeks to advance his exorbitant claims which would be contrary to the common interests of the Gibraltar taxpayer,” a spokesperson for the Government said. 

The Chronicle has approached the Convent for comment and is yet to receive a response.