Promises of sale are an essential stage to the conclusion of a contract of sale of immovable property. Many people will not immediately buy a house, for example – they will first enter into a promise of sale (konvenju), following which the final deed is executed and the actual sale takes place. This means that it is crucial for the individual to be aware of the rules governing the validity of promises of sale of immovable property.

For starters, the promise of sale is considered as a stand-alone contract. It must be in writing, and it must be registered with the Tax Departments. It can also be enforced. Indeed, article 1357(2) of the Civil Code makes it amply clear that, while the promise to sell is not equivalent to a sale, if it is accepted it creates “an obligation on the part of the promisor to carry out the sale, or, if the sale can no longer be carried out, to make good the damages to the promisee”. Indeed, it is not unheard of for someone to be sued because he failed to appear on a final promise of sale.

On the other hand, promises of sale can expire. In fact, they will invariably contain a clause determining by when the final sale is to be concluded, following which the promise expires and is no longer binding. If there is no such term, the law provides a three-month period within which the promise of sale is ‘alive’ and enforceable.

The Civil Code appears to regulate the ‘life’ of a promise of sale quite strictly. Article 1357(2) provides that:

“The effect of such promise shall cease on the lapse of the time agreed between the parties for the purpose or, failing any such agreement, on the lapse of three months from the day on which the sale could be carried out, unless the promisee calls upon the promisor, by means of a judicial intimation filed before the expiration of the period applicable as aforesaid, to carry out the same, and unless, in the event that the promisor fails to do so, the demand by sworn application for the carrying out of the promise is filed within thirty days from the expiration of the period aforesaid”.

From this provision it very clearly emerges that the promise of sale will expire if the promisor is not intimated judicially to fulfil his promise and that this intimation must occur before the date of expiry of the promise itself. But this is not enough. If, despite this intimation to honour his promise, the promisor fails to appear on the final deed of sale, the promisee must sue him in court before 30 days pass from the expiry date of the promise.

It would seem that the law imposes a strict framework regulating the validity of promises of sale and that, if the procedures in article 1357(2) are not followed, the promise of sale is dead and unenforceable.

What does this mean? If the promise is due to expire, but the sale still cannot occur due to some reason or other, the parties must agree to extend the promise of sale by a separate written agreement. The wording of the law seems to suggest that failure to do this and allowing the timeframes mentioned in article 1357(2) to pass without taking the required action is fatal to the promise of sale and results in its expiry. This means that a new promise of sale must be entered into, from scratch.

However, court judgments have at times held that the renewal of a promise of sale that technically expired is enough to bring that promise back from the grave – and so a fresh promise of sale is not required. The reason given for this is that in matters of contract law the will of the parties reigns supreme, and this extends to the resuscitation of expired promises of sale.

The post The Promise of Sale: a legal Lazarus appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

Many a time do lawyers find themselves engaged by clients seeking to avail of a civil remedy against a defendant whose residential address, or even whereabouts, are unknown. This is becoming more common in family cases in Malta involving foreign parties who would have departed from Malta after attempting to build a new life away from their home. This scenario calls for the appointment of curators, which notion is envisaged by Article 930 of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta.

Curators (known as kuraturi deputati in the Maltese language) are tasked at Law with safeguarding the best interests of the person they represent with utmost diligence. Where the defendant’s address is unknown by the person instituting the action, curators are bound to do their best to try to contact the person whom they represent and take all possible measures to identify their place of residence. Should they succeed, they must inform the person of any judicial act and of its contents and to continue looking after their interests with utmost diligence and responsibility. If the person’s address remains unknown despite the curator’s efforts, he is then bound to take all the necessary measures to safeguard the person’s rights.

The Law contemplates other situations besides the one mentioned in the first paragraph, in which the need for curators might arise, for reasons including but not limited to; representing the interest of any minor not legally represented, representing a person with a mental disorder or other condition that renders him incapable of managing his own affairs, as well as any interdicted person. Curators may also be called upon to represent the interests of any person presumed to be dead, where any other person claims to succeed to the rights of such person, as well as the interest of any commercial partnership or any body of persons where any of the persons vested with its representation are absent from Malta.

The demand for the appointment of curators must be lodged by means of an application to be filed simultaneously with the lawsuit (or any act whereby the action is commenced). In other situations, where the necessity to appoint curators arises after the commencement of the lawsuit, the application may be made in writing in the course of the proceedings or even by means of a verbal demand during the hearing of the suit.

In a family context, the need for curators might arise in cases where a parent of foreign nationality (called the “deserting parent”) who would have been residing in Malta together with his/her partner or spouse (called the “deserted parent”) and minor children, abandons the matrimonial home and returns to his/her country of origin, leaving the deserted parent (who is of Maltese nationality or otherwise) to raise their children without disclosing his whereabouts and cutting ties with the family altogether. In cases where the care and custody of the children is vested in both parents jointly, which takes place by way of default under Maltese Law, the deserted parent will require the deserting parent’s signature and consent prior to making certain decisions concerning the minors’ health and education. This situation has also proved to be a nuisance for parents whose minor children are not yet in possession of a passport and who must apply for a new one in order to travel for leisure or even for academic purposes.

Taking the above scenario as an example, the deserted parent must file a lawsuit in the Family Section of the Civil Court to demand the exclusive care and custody of the minors, and in parallel to the lawsuit, file an application for the appointment of curators to represent the deserting parent.

The next step after the Court makes an order for the appointment of curators, is the issuing of the banns (il-bandi) which are posted up at the entrance of the Court building. If the deserting parent, in the scenario mentioned above, has close relatives or friends who reside in Malta, a copy of the banns and the pleading must be served on said relatives or friends, and where no relations are known, these must be published in the Government Gazette and in at least two daily newspapers. This shall be done at the applicant’s expense. Any person interested in accepting the appointment shall have six days within which to do so, which acceptance is subject to the Court’s confirmation of the curator so appearing. If, however, no one lodges an acceptance to the appointment within the time frame stated above, the Court shall appoint as curators an advocate and a legal procurator from the rota established by Law.

Curators have a duty to exercise their best diligence for the benefit of the interests they represent. In the event of misconduct or negligence on their part, or should there arise any reasonable objection to the curators selected from the rota for any reason, the Court may exercise its authority to remove them from the case and appoint others from the rota in their stead.

The post The Role of Curators under Maltese Law appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

Amongst the various forms of guarantees available to a creditor, hypothecs are commonly resorted to as a safeguarding mechanism in view of debts owed by a debtor. Hypothecs may take either of two forms: a) General Hypothecs (burdening all the assets both present and future of a debtor) or b) Special Hypothecs (burdening one particular asset of a debtor).

Whilst both general and special hypothecs rank according to their date of registration, special hypothecs enjoy advantageous features for a creditor for they attach to a particular property encumbering it burdensomely to the extent that they remain operative even vis-à-vis third parties. This important feature of special hypothecs, which does not apply for general hypothecs, finds benefit when the property originally burdened by a special hypothec is transferred to a third party.

In order to properly understand what happens in the latter scenario, it is best to exemplify it by means of a practical example. Kickstarting the action is a relationship between two parties, a common creditor-debtor relationship who are tied together by an existing debt. In order to secure the debt, the principal debtor guarantees by means of a special hypothec in favour of the creditor. At this stage, even though the encumbered property is guaranteeing a debt, it remains in the hands and full ownership of the principal debtor. Another essential figure in the relationship is a third party who comes into the picture when the burdened property passes into his hands.

What happens in this scenario? Can the creditor go ahead and take over the property which has been securing the debt immediately?

In a situation of the sort, the long awaiting creditor would have to exercise an action, known under civil law as the actio ipotecaria. The crux of the action in fact comes to fruition when the existing debt between the creditor and principal debtor falls due and the latter has failed to rectify the same debt. In this situation, the creditor would be able to satisfy his claim by taking over the property secured by the hypothec or privilege, which is effectively in the hands of someone else.

Before exercising the action, the process is kick started by means of a judicial intimation, i.e. by serving the third party and the debtor with a judicial act calling on the same third party to discharge and release the hypothecated property in his favour or otherwise to pay off the debt. If the third party in possession of the hypothecated property has failed to discharge the debt or surrender the property and thirty days would have elapsed from when the creditor has served the debtor and the third party by a judicial act, the creditor has no other option but to institute the so called actio ipotecaria against the third party in possession by means of a sworn application before the First Hall of the Civil Court.

Having brought the actio ipotecaria, the third party does not become the creditor’s debtor, however he would have to either discharge the property which had been hypothecated by means of a special hypothec or otherwise pay off the debt from his own means. However, the third party is not obliged to monetarily pay the debt due to the creditor for his only obligation is limited to surrendering the property under Court Authority and give up its possession. It is only when the property is surrendered that his liability ceases even though the third party remains the owner until the property is sold. Up till the stage when the property has been sold by the creditor, the third party may decide to pay the debt due and regain possession of his property.

The post The Peculiarity of Special Hypothecs appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta, hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code, regulates the choice of surnames for spouses upon entering marriage as well as the choice of surnames for any children which are to be born subsequent to the marriage. At present, following remarkable amendments which entered into force in 2020 by means of amendment act number LXV of 2020, article 4 (1) of the Civil Code now provides various options to both spouses who wish to depart from the so to say “traditional” practice of having one and the same surname for both spouses and children.

In order to illustrate such options in an easily comprehensible manner, let’s take an example of two spouses with the following surnames: Spouse A: Borg and Spouse B: Vella.

The first option available to Spouse A and Spouse B upon entering marriage is the choice of adopting either of their surnames for both of them; practically meaning that Spouse A and Spouse B may decide for both to go by either the surname Borg or otherwise by the surname Vella.

The second option which Spouse A and Spouse B might decide to adopt involves the joining of both their surnames in their own order of preference, which double-barrelled surname would be the surname of both spouses as well as that of any children born thereafter. Therefore, in our scenario, Spouse A and Spouse B may both adopt the surname Borg Vella, or otherwise Vella Borg.

When both spouses fail to agree on a common surname for both of them in accordance with the aforementioned options, the subsequent three choices are available to either one of the spouses.

Either of the spouses may decide to adopt the surname of the other spouse, after which that particular spouse may add his or her surname. Keeping with Spouse A and Spouse B as our examples, in this scenario, Spouse A may decide to retain the surname Borg, whilst Spouse B deciding to adopt a double-barrelled surname of Borg Vella. This can also work the other way around with Spouse A deciding on the latter surname option of Vella Borg, and Spouse B retaining the surname Vella.

Another option similar to the one in the afore involves one spouse retaining his/her own surname following which the surname of the other spouse may be added. In our example this would mean that whilst Spouse A retains the surname Borg, Spouse B decides to adopt the double-barrelled surname Vella Borg. This can also work the other way round, with Spouse B retaining the surname Vella, and Spouse A adopting a double barrelled surname Borg Vella.

The last available option is quite straight forward wherein both spouses retain their own surnames. In such an example Spouse A retaining the surname Borg and Spouse B retaining the surname Vella.

In all three of these scenarios, the spouses would hold different surnames from one another. Therefore, what will happen to the children born from this wed-lock? Which surname would they come to adopt?

In these circumstances, upon their marriage or union, the spouses would have to determine a family-name which would be used for the spouses’ children. Determining such a family name would have to be in line with either of the first two options delineated in article 4 (1), meaning that the spouses would have to choose either one of their surnames (prior to their marriage or union) to be the family-name, or otherwise to choose a double-barrelled surname, in whichever order they prefer, to be the surname to be adopted by any descendants. In our situation, Spouse A and Spouse B hold the following choices: either choosing the surname Borg or the surname Vella as the ‘family-name’  or otherwise the double-barrelled surnames Borg Vella or Vella Borg as the family-name.

One must also keep in mind that in either of all the available options discussed, the combination of the spouses’ surnames shall not result in a surname which is longer than the combination of four surnames and when the surname of any one or both of the spouses already has a combination of two or more surnames, the order of the surname of that spouse shall be retained, and the spouses shall not change such order and, or drop any part of their own surname.

The provisions of this article are not limitedly applicable to those spouses who marry or enter into union after the 29th of December 2020, but shall also be applicable to those spouses who married in Malta before such date provided that any changes that they might wish to make to their surnames are affected by the 29th of December 2025.

The post Surname Changes after Marriage appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

This past week’s power-cuts have spiked countless daily conversations and debates between ordinary residents and business owners alike interested in seeking compensation from Enemalta plc due to the long hours they are suffering without electricity supply.

A   sale  or  a  service  provided or concluded  between a trader and a consumer, in Malta or Gozo shall be deemed to be transactions falling within the competence of the consumer claims tribunal.

That is indeed what a gentleman did in April 2022.  He filed a claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal (CCT 60/22/MM) for the amount of Eur 62 representing the loss of products he held in his fridge and freezer due to a 20 hour long power-cut between the 4th and 5th August 2021.

The claimant even presented a breakdown of the expenses he claimed, however despite the discomfort he undoubtably suffered in the sweltering summer heat, he did not claim any moral damages.

Enemalta plc claimed that during the time of the claim there had been several ‘high tension faults’ all over Malta and that Enemalta plc was not to blame. It claimed that in terms of article 8 of Chapter 536 of the Laws of Malta it was not responsible for damages.

Enemalta’s engineer and manager had also explained that  generally when a problem occurs in the main cable, Enemalta plc relies on a secondary cable, and on such date concerning the consumer’s claim, the secondary cable could not handle the load. Consequently repairs took over a day and this was not in its control and neither was it avoidable.

Limitations to Enemalta’s liability

Enemalta’s liability is limited by means of article 8 of Chapter 536 of the Laws of Malta, which states:

“A distribution system operator shall not be liable for any loss or damage, whether material or consequential, to any person or property, for any cessation of the supply of energy, which may be due to unavoidable accident, fair wear and tear or overloading due to unauthorised connection of apparatus, or to the reasonable requirements of the electrical system, or to the defects in any electrical installation not provided by the distribution system operator.”

The maximum amount one can claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal

As of July 2023, the Consumer Claims Tribunal can hear consumer claims which involve the purchase or hire of goods by a consumer from a trader, or for the provision of services by a trader to a consumer in the value of up to €10,000 instead of €5,000. If the value of the claim exceeds €10,000 a claimant may only pursue the claim before the consumer claims tribunal if they declare that the amount of the claim which is in excess of €10,000 is being abandoned.

Is the consumer restricted to the Consumer Claims Tribunal?

The Consumer Claims Tribunal does not have exclusive jurisdiction, and it remains the consumer’s option whether to bring an action against a trader before a tribunal or before the ordinary courts.

Compensation for pain, distress and inconvenience

The Tribunal may, when determining the issues in dispute in any claim or counter-claim before it, order the trader to pay to the consumer a sum of not less than thirty-five euro (€35) and not more than five hundred euro (€500) as moral damages for any pain, distress, anxiety and inconvenience.

Concluding remarks by the Consumer Claims Tribunal (CCT 60/22/MM)

In this particular case, the CCT considered that this incident could not be avoided and thus it rejected the claimants’ claim for Eur 62 representing his fridge and freezers goods, while basing itself on article 8 of Chapter 536 of the Laws of Malta.

The Summer 2023 Power-Cuts

This certainly leaves consumers asking more questions as they wonder whether they will be continuing their favourite book under candle-light tonight.

Have the Summer 2023 power-cuts been avoidable? Is Enemalta still relying on the secondary cable which could not handle the load during those 20 hours in Summer 2021? If it has, have these power-cuts been avoidable this time round? Could the high-tension faults have been predicted given the rising number of consumers in Malta and Gozo?

The post “Mar id-Dawl!” (Lights out!) appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

In the law of damages, there is the concept of restitutio in integrum. This means that if it is proven that the action or omission of another has resulted in the damage you have suffered, such person is liable to put you in the same position you were in before the damaging event occured.

This rule can be applied to all areas of life. For example, if the pipes of the neighbouring maisonette are leaking onto your property, the owner of the neighbouring maisonette is bound to fix all leakages and any damage that your property has suffered as a consequence of such leakage. Of course, it must be proven that his or her property was the source of the leakage and consequential damage suffered. Indeed, for one to successfully claim damages, there needs to be a link of causation between the act or omission of the other party and the damage suffered by yourself.

To conjure a picture of what a link of causation means, let us take the example of a road incident whereby ‘X’ has been run over by a car driven by ‘Y’. In this example, ‘X’ only suffers slight injuries. ‘X’ is taken to hospital for observation and despite him telling the hospital staff that he has a penicillin allergy, they still proceed to administer penicillin. He has a severe allergic reaction and dies. Is ‘Y’ responsible for ‘X’’s death? No, because here we have what is termed as a ‘break in the link of causation’. This means that while it is true that ‘Y’ ran over ‘X’, ‘X’ only suffered slight injuries from that incident. It was the negligence of the hospital staff that led to his demise. Furthermore, it was not forseeable by ‘Y’ that his actions may lead to the hospital staff’s negligence and the consequential death of ‘X’. The link between cause and effect is thus severed. In such example, the heirs of ‘X’ would have a right of action for damages against the hospital staff.

Continuing to take the hypothetical demise of ‘X’ as our working example, in such scenario, for there to be restitutio in integrum, the heirs of ‘X’ must be compensated. To calculate damages, our Courts take into account the annual salary of the person who suffered the damage (‘X’), the years between ‘X’’s age at the time of the incident and pensionable age (65), and the percentage of disability. A deduction of 20% was traditionally deducted but this percentage nowadays varies. In this example, the percentage of disability would be 100% since the damage caused was death. Therefore, one can only have a 100% rate of disability if the person suffering the damage has died as a result of the damage.

Disability can be both physical and psychological. In the event of both physical and psychological disability – and the respective rates thereto – our Courts use what is known as a ‘weighted average calculation’ to ensure that the rates of disability are equitably applied. One must remember that only death results in 100% disability so a simple addition of percentages does not suffice.

The result of this calculation is to, as much as possible, try and put the person who suffered the damage in the position he or she was in before the event in question. Apart from these two elements, meaning the link of causation and calculation of damage suffered, the Court must also be satisfied that the person causing the damage is actually to blame for such damage. The concept of blame (‘ħtija’), apart from depending on the link of causation, is intrinsically linked to the presence of malice or negligence, but that is a story for another article…

The post You Broke It, You Fix It! appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

I am part owner of a property held in common with four other people. Four of us wish to sell this property to a third party, however one of us is blocking our sale as he keeps on refusing to appear on the deed of sale. The price we intend to obtain from the sale is a just one. What can we do?

The scenario described above is more common than one can perhaps ever imagine. The joint ownership of property is a reality which arises through numerous ways, with the devolution of an inheritance taking the forefront.

Anyone who has ever found himself caught up in such a scenario can understand the struggle of selling a property when one co-owner constantly chooses to stomp his feet and refuse to sell. This was precisely the aim of the legislator when introducing article 495A into Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta (the Civil Code) – to offer majority co-owners a ray of hope against their minority co-owners. As a matter of fact, the final goal of an action under article 495A would be to force the minority co-owners to appear on the final deed of sale of the property in question; ending once and for all the joint ownership of the property.

What are the requirements to kick-start such an action?

Joint Ownership

In order for an action under article 495A to be successful, the property must be held in common and must have been held in common for a period of more than three years. This effectively means that the owners of the property have been co-owners for at least three years. Failing such, the action would not result in its intended goal and would be destined to fail.

No Other Court Action

The law also spells out as a requirement the fact that no ulterior court proceedings would have been instituted in an attempt to divide the property. This requirement is easily cognisable as if the co-owners would have already taken a step to end once and for all the joint ownership of the property through an action for division, an action attempting to sell the property held in common would be erroneous.

A Disagreement

A disagreement on the sale of the property is precisely the reason as to why the majority of the co-owners would resort to such an action. If all the co-owners are in agreement as to the sale of the property than there would be no existing reason as to resort to such court proceedings as all the co-owning parties would simply appear on the deed of sale.

Provided that all the requirements stipulated above are fulfilled, the majority co-owners can proceed to institute their action before the First Hall of the Civil Court under article 495A of the Civil Code.

What happens if a co-owner is unknown?

Co-owners may also face the reality that not all of the co-owners are in fact known. This reality is very often sparked when, following public registry searches, there results a share (or sometimes more) of the property which is unaccounted for. What happens in this case? How can you force someone to appear on a deed of sale when you do not know who that person is?

In circumstances such as the afore the action may still be instituted provided that all of the above-mentioned requirements would have been attained. The only difference lies in an additional procedure which would have to be adopted by means of which, following a declaration made by one of the majority co-owners confirmed on oath that a certain co-owner is unknown, curators are appointed in order to represent the share of the unknown co-owner. The action would then proceed to continue in the usual way as if all the co-owners would have been known from the start.

Therefore, if a group of majority co-owners would like to end once and for all the state of joint ownership they are currently in by selling the property to a third party, article 495A may be their only escape card.

The post Article 495A – An Escape Card to Property held in Common appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

Part one (1): Three types of contracts

The Private Residential Leases Act (Chapter 604 of the Laws of Malta) came into force on 1st January 2020. As mentioned in its preamble, first and foremost, this act seeks to promote the development of the private rental sector; secondly it seeks to ensure standards of fairness, clarity and legal certainty and predictability in the contractual relationship between the lessor (owner of the property) and the lessee (person renting the property); thirdly, with this act, the legislator aimed at ensuring adequate accommodation.

It is mandatory that all private residential lease contracts entered into after the entry into force of this Act , including their renewal, whether express or tacit, shall be registered with the Housing authority.

What is a “Private Residential Lease”?

Any  long  or  short private  residential  lease,  including  the  letting  of  shared residential space, which is entered into after 1st January, 2020, and any lease for a residential purpose entered into before the 1st  January,  2020,  which  would  still  be  in  its  original  or renewed period on the 1st January, 2021;

Private Residential Lease Contracts: there are Three types of leases

(i) Long private residential Leases

(ii) Short private residential Leases

(iii) Shared Residential Space

(i) What is a “Long private residential Lease” (commonly known as Long-Let) ?

The law defines such a lease as any lease, negotiated for a primary residential purpose in accordance with article 8 and which is not a short private residential lease.

First and foremost, a Long-let, cannot have a duration of less than one (1) year. In the event that a long-private residential lease agreement stipulates a shorter duration shall be deemed to have been agreed for a period of at least one (1) year.

Long let has a mandatory period that should be respected at all costs and the lessee (lessee of the premises, or his spouse, civil union partner, cohabitant or a member of his family up to the second degree, whether direct or collateral) cannot withdraw from such lease during this period. This mandatory period varies depending on the duration of the long-let agreement. In fact, the legislator establishes the following duration categories:

(a)   six (6) months in the case where the lease is for a period of less than two (2) years; or

(b)  nine (9) months in the case where the lease is for a period of two (2) years or more but less than three (3) years; or

(c)   twelve (12) months in the case where the lease is for a period of three (3) years or more;

Following these mandatory periods, the lessee may be released from the contract by giving notice to the lessor (landlord):

(i) In the event of Long-let Contract for a period less than two (2) years, by giving at least one (1) month notice to the lessor by means of a registered letter;

(ii) In the event of a long-let contract for a period of two (2) years or more but less than three (3) years, by giving at least two (2) months’ notice to the lessor by means of a registered letter;

(iii) In the event of a long-let contract for a period of three years or more, by giving at least three (3) months’ notice to the lessor by means of a registered letter;

Lessor may retain one (1) month’s rent

If the lessee withdraws from a long-let contract, before the lapse of the applicable periods mentioned above, the lessor may retain an amount not exceeding one (1) month’s rent from the deposit left by the lessee by way of security and may still proceed against the lessee to collect any other amounts due by him or her.

Automatic Renewal of Lease

In the event that the lessor fails to notify the lessee within the established period, the lease is renewed automatically for a year with the same terms and conditions.

(ii) Short private residential Leases (commonly known as the Short-Let contracts)

A short  private  residential  lease  means  any  lease, negotiated for a duration of six (6) months that seeks to satisfy the needs of a number of categories of lessees. The legislator mentions four categories of lessees that can apply for short-let contracts, these are:

Category one (1): Non-resident workers  who  are  employed either for a period less than six (6) months or only to complete a specific task within a maximum period of six (6) months;

Category two (2): Non-resident students who are enrolled in courses for less than six (6) months;

Category three (3): Residents who need to rent an alternative primary residence for a period of less than six (6) months;

Category four (4): Non-residents who need to rent a tenement for a period of less than six (6) months, provided that they  would  not  be  seeking  to  establish  their  long residence in Malta.

The first month of the short-let lease is obligatory for the lessee and following the obligatory month, the lessee may be released from the contract but is obliged to give at least one week’s prior notice to the lessor by means of a registered letter. It should be emphasised that such a contract cannot be renewed.

What about Tourists?

It should be emphasised that property leased  to  any  tourist,  exclusively  for tourism purposes (holiday furnished property) are excluded from the scope of the Private Residential Leases Act, for as long as the person staying in that property falls under the definition of tourist (ny  person  who  is  traveling  to  and staying in places outside his usual environment for not more than one (1) consecutive year for leisure, business or other personal purposes other than by taking up employment or to establish his business in the place visited). In the case of holiday homes tenements, one would have to look at the Malta Travel and Tourism Services Act (Chapter 409 of the Laws of Malta).

On the other hand, if  a  property  is  registered  as  a holiday  furnished  premises  in  accordance  with  the Malta Travel and Tourism Services Act, this does not exclude the applicability of the Private Residential Leases Act if the applicant does not qualify as tourist

(iii) Shared Residential Space

This means the letting of any separate space in an apartment or building, with shared amenities, such as kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Any contract entered into for the lease of a shared residential space shall have a duration of six (6) months. The lessee may withdraw from the lease, at any time, by giving one (1) week prior notice to the lessor by a registered letter. Like in short-let contracts, Shared Residential Space contracts of leases shall not be renewed.

In conclusion to this Part One, all of the abovementioned category of private residential contracts should be registered with the Housing Authority.

The post Let’s talk: Private Residential Rental Contracts appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

“The only, absolute and best friend that a man has, in this selfish world, the only one that will not betray or deny him, is his dog.” This strong statement made by King Frederick of Prussia way back in 1789 paved the way for the now widely used phrase ‘a dog is a man’s best friend.’

When one decides to become a dog owner, the first things that initially come to mind are more often than not decisions relating to whether to shop or adopt, the size of the dog one intends to have, the name of the pooch, and many other material things to make the pup settle into his new home. Whilst this is all well and good, little does the potential dog owner wonder as to which laws s/he would have to abide by now that s/he is the owner of a ‘canis lupus familiaris’ (a domestic dog).

Chapter 312 of the Laws of Malta is a whole piece of legislation targeted specifically for dog-owners or persons who have a dog under their control; as a matter of fact, it is called the “Dogs Act.” This piece of legislation stars off by explaining that no person (over the age of 18 and capable of taking charge of a dog) shall keep a dog of the age of six months or over without a licence issued by the Commissioner of Police. This has been more recently complemented through specific set of regulations known as the Electronic Identification of Dogs Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 437.101) which came into force on the 20th of May 2011. The electronic tagging of dogs (more commonly known as microchipping) has become binding on all pups over the age of four months in that any person in possession of a dog who   fails to electronically identify such a dog shall be liable to a fine (multa) of €300. All microchipped dogs are subsequently entered into a National Microchipped Dogs Register.

Legal obligations of dog owners do not stop with electronic tagging and registration. Subsidiary Legislation 312.01 (the Control of Dogs Regulations) is also an important legislative instrument worthy of discussion. Right from the get go, this legislation caters for other people’s protection when a dog owner takes his dog out for a stroll by providing that “no  person  who  has  any  dog  under  his  control shall allow such dog to stray and where the dog is taken out in any street, the dog shall be kept of leash – this however with an exception to dogs which are used for hunting purposes (kaċċa). This applies irrespective of the size, breed, and/or temperament of the dog. The law however provides a further obligation for tempered dogs, this by imposing that if a person knows or suspects that the dog under his control is temperamental, dangerous, or can cause harm to any person, he shall also keep the dog muzzled at all times in any public place. Furthermore, the responsible law-abiding dog owner or controller shall always be prepared for any potential dog soiling and carry with him what the law has termed as a ‘dog bag’. Failing to adhere to either of these provisions, one would be at risk of being found guilty of a contravention and liable to the respective punishments as provided through the Regulations.

Special attention must always be given to dogs with a temperament. Whilst the law does not specify what classifies a dog as “dangerous”, the law itself through article 14 (4) of Chapter 312 of the Laws of Malta provides that  a dog  which  has  bitten  or  assaulted  a  person  shall  be considered to be dangerous, unless the contrary is proved. In its essence, article 14 of the Dogs Act creates as a punishable offence  the failure on the part of a dog owner or keeper to control a dog which is dangerous to persons. The traps of this legal provision may prove to have consequences not only on the irresponsible individual, but also on the dog itself who may also come to face punishment upon a court order if it is proved to be dangerous to people. The latter consequence, which the law describes through the harsh word “destruction”, may be ordered irrespective of whether the dog owner or keeper himself is found liable of having failed to kept the pooch under proper control. The decision is left entirely into the hands of the Court to analyse and determine whether the act was done by the dog without any form of provocation on the part of the person injured or otherwise because the owner or the keeper of the dog is not taking care of it and keeping it under control as required by the Law. Furthermore, as can also be seen from local judgements, the Court may decide against the destruction of the dog (even if considered dangerous) and rather orders that the dog be kept in an animal sanctuary forever.

An article of the sort cannot be concluded without referring to a strong pronouncement made by the honourable Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Judicature in that while animals are beautiful and good companions, they just as much can offer danger if whoever is responsible for them does not take care of them properly. If one chooses to look after a dog or any other animal he must be responsible for his actions at any time of the day and in any place he may be.

The post A Man’s Best Friend and the Law appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

A universal concept which has been with us since time immemorial is that referred to as ‘betrothal’, or as commonly referred to in day to day parlance, ‘enagagement’. The traditional ceremony connoted by the term ‘betrothed’ has in most cases today been abolished, and replaced with the romantic act of ‘getting down on one knee’ proposal and consequent engagement. No matter the way the couple decides to celebrate this special moment, the end game is one and the same – that the future spouses promise one another become one through marriage.

The step to follow is often that of informing the world of this happy promise, often communicated through a classic Facebook or Instagram post captioned “she said yes”. As the congratulations comments to the couple start pouringin, very little does one come to ponder the legal consequences which may ensue should this promise to marry not materialise in a marriage.

Still a part and parcel of our law is the Promises of Marriage Law (Chapter 5 of the Laws of Malta) which was enacted into our legislation by means of a proclamation way back in 1834. Whilst recognising that (even though not as common) a couple may still enter into written promises of marriage, the legislator has made it crystal clear that in spite of such written promises, no   court   in   Malta   shall   compel or order any person to perform or complete any promise of marriage made to another, or any contract or agreement entered into with another for the solemnization of marriage. Put simply, no court can force anyone to get married.

, It must be emphasised however, that being betrothed or engaged denotes a bilateral contract between the fiances. And therefore, just like any other contract, the promise to marry (the obligation in this form of contract) may not always be fulfilled. Aimed at safeguarding the interests of ‘injured’ fiance, the legislator has mantained an action for damages if the marriage does not ensure.

By way of  an example, if a fiancé refuses to enter into marriage within a reasonable time after a request made by the other, or otherwise one fiancé decides to call off the wedding after discovering that the other was seeing someone else, the injured party shall be entitled to maintain an action for damages against the other for the recovery of damages. Such an action for damages has to be instituted within a two-year prescriptive period.

An action for the compensation of damages due to the non fulfillment of a promise to marry (whether such promise was made verbally or whether it was deduced to writing) requires that there was indeed an existing promise to marry between the parties, and consequentially that this ‘promise’ was broken down solely by the defendant without a just cause. Furthermore, the ex-fiancé instituting the case must prove that s/he suffered material damages as a consequence to this unfulfilled promise.

In order for an action of the sort to succeed, it is not necessary that the parties would have wrote down their intended promises to marry in the form of a contract, and neither is it a requisite that an engagement ring would have been given. What is essential however is the capacity of the parties to contract the ‘betrothal’ or the ‘engagement’; which capacity is identical to the capacity to contract marriage.

It is only in the form of damages awarded wherein consideration has to be given of the means through which the ‘promise to marry’ was made; whether written or verbal.

Maltese law does not always award moral damages, and this is a   fact. A failure to fulfill the promise to marry can be considered as one of the few instances wherein the Maltese legislator has envisaged the award of moral damages. However, this is not so clear cut. When a fiancé decides to back track from the promise to marry, the injured party may only demand moral damages if the promise to marry had been deduced to a written agreement; and thus the Promises of Marriage Law (Chapter 5 of the Laws of Malta) would be rendered applicable.

It is apt that nowadays deducing a promise to marry to writing is rather considered to be the exception than the rule. However, this does not mean that a party whose marriage has been called off has no way to recuperate material damages. The absence of a written form does not render inadmissible an action for the material damages actually suffered as a consequence of the wrongful action of the guilty party, since the right to these specific damages, derives from a different law altogether – specifically article 1031 of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta) which provides that everyone must answer for the damage that happens through his/her own fault in conjunction with article 1125 of the Civil Code for failure to execute a contracted obligation.

Therefore, irrespective of the manner in which the promise to marry was professed, one must be extra cautious when retracting from marriage as should the elements of the existence of the marriage, the unjust behaviour of the retracting fiancé, and the consequential sufferring of material damages concur, one might find himself defending a lawsuit for damages before the courts.

The post She said “YES” (for a while) appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.