Insights By Joseph Mizzi

Insights are a medium through which our lawyers share information that is relevant to your business.

Muscat Mizzi Advocates at IT Law Group Europe Spring Conference 2025

Muscat Mizzi Advocates at IT Law Group Europe Spring Conference 2025

Muscat Mizzi Advocates is pleased to announce that our partners, Dr. Joseph Mizzi and Dr. Alain Muscat, are representing the firm at the IT Law Group Europe Spring Conference 2025, held in Athens, Greece on the 25th and 26th of April. This annual gathering brings together leading legal professionals from across Europe specialising in information technology law and intellectual property. The conference serves as a platform to explore the evolving legal landscape in the digital age, with focused discussions on data protection, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, cross-border digital compliance, and IP rights in the tech sector. Dr. Mizzi and Dr. Muscat’s participation underlines the firm’s ongoing commitment to remaining at the forefront of legal developments in both IT and IP law, while fostering collaboration and dialogue with peers across the European legal landscape. We look forward to sharing insights and developments from the conference with our clients and partners. We look forward to sharing insights and developments from the conference with our clients and partners.
Meet Us at the IBA Annual Litigation Forum in Singapore

Meet Us at the IBA Annual Litigation Forum in Singapore

We’re pleased to share that our Partner, Joseph Mizzi, will be attending the IBA Annual Litigation Forum 2025, taking place from 9–11 April  in Singapore. This year’s forum, titled “The Future of Litigation”, will bring together leading practitioners from across the globe to discuss key trends shaping the world of dispute resolution, including developments in transnational litigation, the role of international commercial courts, and the growing impact of artificial intelligence in legal practice. The event offers a valuable platform for thought leadership, cross-border dialogue, and professional collaboration. Joseph looks forward to engaging with fellow legal professionals, sharing insights, and exploring opportunities for future cooperation. If you’re attending the conference and would like to arrange a meeting, feel free to reach out directly at joseph.mizzi@muscatmizzi.com.
Court Upholds Right to Divide Roof in Co-ownership Case

Court Upholds Right to Divide Roof in Co-ownership Case

In matters of co-ownership, individuals cannot be compelled to remain in such a state indefinitely and may request the partition of the property, provided this is easily divisible. This principle was underscored in the judgment delivered on the 30th January 2024 in the case William Gatt, Claire Gatt et al. vs George Mangion et al., presided over by Honorable Judge Dr. Joanne Vella Cuschieri, which judgment was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal on the 30th January 2025. Case Background The plaintiffs sought judicial intervention to dissolve co-ownership of the roof of a block of apartments, which was held in common between four apartments, in equal, undivided shares. The plaintiffs presented an architect’s report demonstrating that the property was divisible without undue harm. Despite sending a formal legal letter and a judicial letter, the defendants consistently opposed any division. Consequently, the plaintiffs requested a court order to terminate the co-ownership and permit partition. Defendant's Arguments Inapplicability of Civil Code Provisions: The defendants argued that Article 4 of the Condominium Act (Chapter 398, Laws of Malta) excludes the application of the Civil Code to property held pro indiviso in condominium common areas. They also cited Article 7 of Chapter 398, which requires unanimous consent for division. Competence of the Court: They contended that disputes regarding condominiums must be resolved through arbitration under the Arbitration Act. Potential Prejudice: The defendants claimed that division would reduce usability and diminish the property’s value due to limited development potential. They also alleged disproportionate benefits and prejudice against smaller portions. Court’s Analysis and Decision The court had already dismissed the defendants’ preliminary pleas regarding the admissibility of the action, the requirement for unanimous consent, and the jurisdiction of the court to decide the case. The Court, in its partial judgment delivered on the 23rd of February 2021, affirmed its competence and allowed the case to proceed to the merits. In its judgment on the merits, the court focused on whether the property could be easily divisible or partitioned without difficulty. The Architect’s Report played a pivotal role, confirming that the property- in this case, the roof - was divisible without diminishing usability for any of the apartment owners. Under Article 496 of the Civil Code, no individual can be forced to remain in co-ownership, and partition can be demanded unless explicitly prohibited by a valid agreement or will. Notably: Agreements preventing partition are valid only for up to five years and can be renewed. Even where partition is prohibited, the court may allow it under "serious circumstances" as outlined in Article 497 of the Civil Code. The court affirmed that the law prioritizes enabling partition unless there are compelling reasons to maintain co-ownership. It dismissed the defendants’ concerns about reduced usability, stating that each party’s right to use their portion of the roof would remain intact post-partition. Regarding potential value reduction, the court emphasized cooperative development planning to enhance the property’s overall value. It advised the parties to collaborate in managing the airspace, benefiting all stakeholders. Final Judgment The court granted the plaintiffs’ request, ordering the property’s partition. It rejected the defendants’ arguments and claims, affirming the plaintiffs’ right to terminate co-ownership. This case demonstrates the fundamental principle enshrined in law that no individual can be compelled to remain a co-owner against their will. The plaintiffs were represented by Dr. Joseph Mizzi.  
Understanding the 2024 Amendments to Malta’s Private Residential Lease Laws: Key Changes and Compliance Guidelines

Understanding the 2024 Amendments to Malta’s Private Residential Lease Laws: Key Changes and Compliance Guidelines

In June 2024, Act XX introduced important amendments to the legal framework governing private residential leases. These changes aim to clarify existing provisions, enhance protections for both tenants and lessors, and establish higher standards for leased properties. This article provides an overview of the key updates, including registration requirements, lease termination rules, and habitability standards, as well as insights into the transitional period for implementing these amendments. Termination of Leases Due to Institutionalisation A significant change to the Civil Code relates to the treatment of lessees who become permanently dependent on institutions, such as hospitals or elderly homes. The amendment to Article 1555A treats such situations as equivalent to the lessee’s death, resulting in the automatic termination of the lease. This adjustment replaces the previous provision that allowed the transfer of tenancy rights to certain family members under similar circumstances. Stricter Notice Requirements for Lease Termination The amendments update Articles 1573 and 1574, introducing stricter notice requirements for lease termination. Lessors must now provide a minimum of three months' notice via registered letter before terminating a lease for personal use or due to property sale or transfer. This change aims to offer greater security to tenants, allowing them sufficient time to make alternative arrangements. Extended Registration Deadlines and Retroactive Effect The changes to the registration process under Article 4 are particularly significant. The registration period for private residential leases has been extended from 10 to 30 days, allowing lessors more flexibility to comply. Importantly, registration now has retroactive effect, ensuring that tenants' rights are protected from the lease’s commencement date, even if registration is delayed. The process has also been modernized, with a shift to mandatory online submissions, simplifying compliance for lessors. New Habitability Standards for Rental Properties The amendments grant the Minister the authority to set minimum habitability standards for leased properties, including regulations on the maximum number of occupants per dwelling. The Housing Authority is responsible for enforcing these standards, ensuring that rental properties are safe and not overcrowded. This focus on habitability aims to improve living conditions for tenants and establish clear benchmarks for lessors to meet. Clearer Guidelines for Lease Renewals A new provision, Article 9A, clarifies the process for renewing lease agreements. Any renewal must adhere to the terms of the original agreement, with a potential rent increase capped at 5%. The renewal period must be for at least one year. If a renewal is not formalized but the lessee continues occupying the property, the Housing Authority can impose fines for non-compliance, encouraging transparency in lease extensions. Simplified Process for Lessee Substitution and Addition Articles 9B and 9C introduce provisions for substituting or adding a lessee with the consent of all parties involved. These changes allow for flexibility without creating a new lease agreement or altering the original leasing period. Incoming lessees assume any existing obligations, ensuring continuity in the rental agreement. Gradual Implementation for Existing Leases; Immediate Application for New Agreements To ease the transition, leases that began before June 2024 remain governed by the previous rules, allowing lessors and tenants to continue under their current terms without immediate changes. This phased approach prevents disruptions and allows time to adjust to the new requirements. For lease agreements entered into after the amendments came into force in June 2024, the new rules apply immediately. This ensures that new leases align with the enhanced protections and standards, promoting fairness and transparency in the rental market from day one. Conclusion The June 2024 amendments to the law on private residential leases represent a significant shift towards greater clarity, fairness, and transparency in rental agreements. By refining notice periods, modernizing registration procedures, and emphasizing minimum standards for habitability, these changes aim to protect both tenants and lessors. With a transitional period in place, stakeholders have time to adapt to the new framework, ensuring that the rental market continues to function smoothly while aligning with these updated legal standards.
Malta Transposes EU Anti-SLAPP Directive into National Law

Malta Transposes EU Anti-SLAPP Directive into National Law

Malta has officially transposed the EU's anti-SLAPP directive, becoming the first Member State to do so. The Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) Order, 2024, aims to prevent abusive lawsuits designed to silence public participation. The order, introduced by means of Legal Notice 177 of 2024, mirrors the EU directive by introducing key measures, including security for costs, early dismissal of unfounded claims, and penalties for abusive litigation, while also ensuring legal aid for defendants. What Makes a SLAPP a SLAPP? A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) targets individuals or organizations specifically because of their engagement in public participation. These lawsuits are not genuinely intended to resolve legal disputes but are instead used as a tactic to intimidate, silence, or financially burden the defendants. The primary goal is to discourage public participation and free expression by exploiting the legal process. In terms of the said Legal Notice, abusive court proceedings are those that aim to prevent or penalise public participation, often exploiting an imbalance of power. Key characteristics, as specified in the said law, include: Disproportionate Claims: Excessive or unreasonable claims, such as inflated dispute values. Multiple Proceedings: Filing numerous lawsuits on similar issues to overwhelm the defendant. Intimidation and Harassment: Using threats or harassment, either before or during legal proceedings. Procedural Abuse: Employing delaying tactics, bad-faith forum shopping, or strategic withdrawal of cases to evade accountability. These elements misuse the legal system to suppress public discourse and participation rather than seeking justice. Key Features and Applications Security for Costs: Courts may require plaintiffs to provide financial security to cover the defendant's potential legal expenses, deterring frivolous lawsuits and protecting defendants from undue financial burdens. Early Dismissal of Unfounded Claims: The law allows for the prompt dismissal of manifestly unfounded cases, ensuring that defendants are not subjected to lengthy and costly legal proceedings over baseless allegations. Penalties for Abusive Litigation: Plaintiffs found guilty of abusive litigation can be ordered to pay all legal costs and may face additional penalties up to €10,000. This serves as a deterrent against using the legal system to suppress public discourse. Legal Aid for Defendants: The legislation provides for legal aid to individuals facing SLAPP suits, promoting access to justice regardless of financial means. These provisions align closely with the EU directive's requirements, emphasizing the protection of public participation in matters of public interest, including freedom of expression and information. The law applies to civil and commercial cases with cross-border implications, excluding criminal matters and purely domestic disputes. The consistent application of these measures across EU Member States ensures a unified approach to combating SLAPPs and upholding democratic values. Conclusion Malta's implementation of the EU anti-SLAPP directive marks a significant step in protecting public participation and free speech within the European Union. By closely aligning with the directive, Maltese law provides comprehensive safeguards against the misuse of legal proceedings to silence critics, setting a precedent for other Member States. This harmonized legal framework enhances the protection of fundamental rights across the EU, fostering a robust environment for democratic engagement and public debate.
Meet Us at the IBA Annual Litigation Forum in Amsterdam!

Meet Us at the IBA Annual Litigation Forum in Amsterdam!

We are thrilled to announce that Joseph Mizzi will be attending the prestigious International Bar Association’s Annual Litigation Forum in Amsterdam, from April 17th to 19th. This event is a cornerstone for legal professionals worldwide to share insights, engage in meaningful discussions, and explore the latest trends in litigation. It provides a unique opportunity for networking, learning, and collaboration among the global legal community. If you’re attending and would like to schedule a meeting with Joseph, please reach out to us at info@muscatmizzi.com.
Revolutionising Condominium Management: Malta’s Legislative Leap Forward

Revolutionising Condominium Management: Malta’s Legislative Leap Forward

The concept of condominium living in Malta is facing potential legislative modernisation, with a white paper proposing significant reforms. These proposals aim to address the challenges in governance, maintenance, and management of shared spaces. This article delves into the proposed amendments, which, while not yet law, indicate the direction of future legal frameworks. Proposed Legislation: A Glimpse into the Future The government's White Paper entitled “Reforming the Condominium Act” has outlined several key reforms that could redefine condominium living. While these changes are still under consideration and have not yet been enacted, they signal a move towards more structured management and dispute resolution. Here are the most salient proposals: Establishing a Condominium Regulator A central proposal is the establishment of a Condominium Regulator, which would serve as the cornerstone of a new governance structure, maintaining a register of qualified administrators, and setting benchmarks for best practices in condominium management. Introducing a Condominium Affairs Tribunal The proposed legislation suggests the creation of a Condominium Affairs Tribunal, offering a streamlined, cost-effective dispute resolution process. This would involve mediation and, if necessary, swift adjudication, improving access to justice for condominium residents. Redefining the Role of the Administrator The White Paper suggests stringent criteria for condominium administrators, emphasizing legal capacity, financial stability, and a clear criminal record, especially concerning offences related to property, money laundering, or terrorism. Enhancing Financial and Legal Transparency With an emphasis on financial stability and legal transparency, the proposed amendments stipulate that administrators must adhere to fiduciary duties, maintain confidentiality, and manage condominium affairs with due diligence. Insurance and Legal Entity Formation Another significant proposal is having mandatory insurance for common areas to safeguard against potential liabilities. Furthermore, the White Paper advocates for the formation of an owners' association with legal personality, enabling better management and legal representation for condominiums. Meeting Procedures and Resident Involvement The proposed reforms also include modernizing meeting procedures for condominium residents, with enhancements to notification processes and the adoption of digital tools to facilitate participation. Addressing Criticisms and Concerns The Malta Development Association (MDA) and several property developers have voiced concerns that the proposed reforms may not fully address all practical challenges, particularly regarding enforcement and the transition of responsibilities. These criticisms highlight the need for continued dialogue and refinement of the proposed legislation to ensure it meets the needs of all stakeholders. Preparing for Change in Condominium Governance These proposed amendments reflect a proactive approach to meet the demands of modern condominium living. While these changes are prospective and the white paper is a precursor to law, understanding them is crucial for administrators and residents alike.   As Malta anticipates these potential changes, Muscat Mizzi Advocates remains at the forefront, ready to guide condominium administrators and residents through the intricacies of condominium law. If you need assistance understanding these proposed reforms or have any condominium-related concerns, our team is  here to help. Reach out to us for tailored advice and support.
Reclaiming Company Assets After It Has Been Struck Off the Registry: Analysing the Carmel Cortis et vs L-Onor Prim Ministru et Judgment

Reclaiming Company Assets After It Has Been Struck Off the Registry: Analysing the Carmel Cortis et vs L-Onor Prim Ministru et Judgment

A recent judgment from the First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) has significant implications for shareholders and interested parties seeking to recover a company's assets long after it has been struck off the Malta Business Registry. This article delves into the ramifications of this judgment and its potential to reshape the legal landscape in such cases. Section 352 - The Fate of Company Assets: At the core of this matter is Article 325(2) of the Companies Act (Chapter 386, Laws of Malta). This provision dictates that when a company becomes inactive and is subsequently struck off, its assets automatically transfer on to the Government of Malta. This process has faced considerable criticism for its lack of transparency and the adverse effects it has on shareholders and other stakeholders. The only remedy given in this respect is set out in sub-article 4 of the same provision, which empowers members, creditors, and other aggrieved parties to request that a company be revived and consequently restored to the register. Since this may only be done within five years of publication of the notice of the striking off, interested parties may be placed in a prejudicial position, especially since whenever a company is struck off due to it being inoperative, members, creditors, and interested parties are often unaware of the striking off. The implication of this is that interested parties would be deprived of the assets of the company which would have devolved upon the Government automatically, without any notice or positive action from the company or its shareholders.  The Carmel Cortis et vs L-Onor Prim Ministru et Case: The case under scrutiny involves Vassallo & Cortis Ltd, which was removed from the registry in 2003. This company owned a property with an estimated value of €450,000. The plaintiffs argued that this constituted a violation of their human rights, specifically invoking the right to property and the right to an effective remedy, as outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights. The court briefly analysed the right to the enjoyment of property and highlighted the importance of the premise of restitutio in integrum for the aggrieved shareholders and their heirs, which advocates for full restitution to aggrieved parties. It then went on to confirm whether the claimants had exhausted all ordinary remedies, in this case being the previously outlined ordinary remedy set out in Article 325(4) of the Companies Act. The court criticised the outlined procedure by calling out Article 325(2) for being draconian, this being the provision regulating the striking off of an inactive company. Following a careful analysis of the principles underlying the right to property, it went on to criticise the effects of Article 325 for depriving shareholders of a company’s assets whilst possibly preserving the company’s liabilities to their detriment. Additionally, the Court noted that the automatic devolution of assets in favour of the government fails to reach an appropriate balance between the general interest and the interest of the proprietors. It is on this basis that the court rejected the plea of lack of exhaustion of ordinary remedies. In deciding on the merits of the case, the Court was adamant on the fact that Article 325(2) leads to a shareholder being deprived of the economic value which should be enjoyed by them seeing as they are the physical persons who have a direct interest in the asset of a company due to their investments therein. Accordingly, the court focused on the effects of the provision and the realities it produces and classified it as de facto expropriation occurring through the very operation of the law. Implications and Conclusion: The monumental judgment in the Carmel Cortis et vs L-Onor Prim Ministru et case confirmed a breach of human rights and ordered the Registrar of Companies to reinstate the company, enabling it to regain title to its property. This landmark decision is expected to set the stage for a series of similar cases, allowing shareholders to recover lost assets that were previously vested in companies struck off from the registry, without being constrained by a five-year time limit. Given that Article 325(4) extends not only to shareholders but also to other interested parties, the implications of this judgment are profound and far-reaching. Furthermore, it is essential to recognise that this judgment is not yet final, as it has been appealed. As such, the legal landscape continues to evolve. It is imperative for all stakeholders involved in matters of corporate governance and asset recovery to remain vigilant and informed about potential legislative changes stemming from this pivotal decision. The judgment serves as a clarion call for legislators to address the inherent imbalances in the existing legal framework, where the interests of companies and their shareholders are not equitably addressed. The urgency of implementing necessary amendments to prevent the recurrence of such inequitable situations cannot be overstated.
Announcing Our New Office Location!

Announcing Our New Office Location!

We're excited to announce that we have moved to a new location to better serve our clients. Our new office is now located at Office 1, 4th Floor, Kingsway Palace, Republic Street, Valletta. We look forward to welcoming you to our new premises!

Contact


You have the questions. We have the answers.

Would you like to set up a meeting?

Give us a call

Drop us a line

Follow us

© MuscatMizzi 2025. All rights reserved.