Committed to your legal needs.
Invested in your success.

On the 29th January 2026, the Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court in Tennisline Malta Limited vs Intersteel & Fence Limited, a case concerning defective works carried out on tennis courts in Malta. Both Courts found in favour of Tennisline Malta Limited, the party that had engaged the contractor, reaffirming fundamental principles governing a contractor’s responsibility for the proper execution of works under Maltese law. The decision provides clear guidance on recurring issues in construction disputes in Malta, including: The standard of workmanship required from a contractor; The extent of a contractor’s responsibility for defective works; Whether liability can be avoided by attributing fault to subcontractors, and The remedies available to the injured party. Tennisline Malta Limited was represented throughout the proceedings by Dr Joseph Mizzi and Adv. Ylenia Busuttil. The Background: Works That Failed Soon After Completion The plaintiff engaged Intersteel & Fence Limited to carry out resurfacing and fencing works on tennis courts occupied and operated by it. Within a few months of completion, serious problems began to emerge. The surface paint started peeling, the concrete deteriorated, and the tennis courts became unusable. Tennisline was forced to suspend its services and incur further costs to investigate and attempt to remedy the defects. Despite being notified of these issues, the contractor denied responsibility. Tennisline therefore instituted court proceedings seeking a declaration that the works had not been carried out in accordance with proper skill and workmanship (‘nuqqas ta’ sengħa u arti’) and claiming compensation for the damage suffered. Key Findings at First Instance At first instance, the Civil Court confirmed that the works were defective and upheld the findings put forward by the plaintiff. In particular, the Court accepted that the concrete was defective, with inadequate pull-off properties and that the works lacked essential elements, namely a waterproofing membrane and fibre mesh. These shortcomings were found to be the direct cause of the rapid deterioration of the tennis courts. The Court declared that the works had not been carried out according to proper workmanship and awarded damages in favour of Tennisline. The Contractor’s Responsibility — Even Where Subcontractors Are Involved A central aspect of the judgment was the Court’s firm position on the contractor’s responsibilities. The contractor argued that any defects were attributable to subcontractors engaged to supply or lay the concrete. The Court rejected this argument. It emphasised that the contractor alone is responsible towards the client. A subcontractor does not carry any direct responsibility towards the person who commissioned the works. If a subcontractor defaults, that default is attributed to the contractor itself. This is because a contractor has a legal obligation not only to carry out the works, but also to survey and supervise the works of its subcontractors. A contractor cannot avoid liability by outsourcing parts of the job. The Court also underlined that a contractor’s obligations go beyond mere execution. It is the contractor’s obligation to inform the client of what is required to ensure that the works are carried out properly and in accordance with proper skill and workmanship, and in the absence of such advice, the contractor cannot be absolved of responsibility. This was the basis on which the Court considered that fibre mesh and a waterproofing membrane ought to have been installed, even though these were not expressly stipulated in the contract. Through this, the Court inferred that unless otherwise contractually stipulated, it is inferred that all elements necessary to achieve a usable result in accordance with proper skill and workmanship must be followed and completed by the contractor, irrespective of technical specifications contractually agreed upon. The Appeal – Recognition of various available remedies The contractor appealed the judgment, raising several grievances. One of the most interesting concerned the remedies available to the injured party under Maltese law. The respondent argued that Article 1390 of the Civil Code, which provides remedies where goods are delivered not in the same quality agreed to in the contract, does not apply to contracts of work and should be limited to contracts of sale. The Court of Appeal confirmed that a contract of works does not deprive the person engaging the contractor of the rights and remedies usually afforded to a buyer. The Court did, however, clarify that the remedy granted depends on the route chosen by the injured party and on the nature of the obligation breached, referring to the distinction between an obligation to do (obbligazione di fare) and an obligation to give (obbligazione di dare). The Court also recognised that while the principles underlying Article 1390 were relied upon as a subsidiary argument at first instance, the case primarily concerned substandard workmanship, rather than simple non-conformity with contractual clauses. It thus rejected the grievance. What makes this judgment particularly noteworthy is how clearly and directly the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of remedies. It is relatively rare for Maltese courts to state so explicitly that multiple remedies may be available simultaneously, and that it is for the person engaging the contractor to choose which remedy, or combination of remedies, to pursue. The Court confirmed that remedies under Articles 1640, 1069, 1125 and 1127 of the Civil Code may all be relied upon in cases of defective workmanship, with Article 1390 representing a further possible route depending on the circumstances. These remedies, and how to determine which is appropriate, are explored further in our earlier article. Legal remedies for bad workmanship – which one is right for you? https://www.muscatmizzi.com/insights/legal-remedies-for-bad-workmanship-which-one-is-right-for-you The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety, confirming both liability and the award of damages. Final Remarks This case sends a clear message: contractors are responsible for their work, for their subcontractors, and for advising clients properly. It also substantially highlights that where workmanship falls below agreed standards, the law provides meaningful and flexible remedies to those affected. Dr Joseph Mizzi and Adv. Ylenia Busuttil acted on behalf of the plaintiff, Tennisline Malta Limited. This judgment further strengthens established principles governing contractor liability and defective works under Maltese law, areas in which our firm regularly advises clients.

The Maltese Civil Court (First Hall), presided over by Mr Justice Mark Simiana, has refused to recognise and enforce an Austrian court judgment against a Malta-licensed gaming operator, in a decision that provides important judicial clarification on the operation of Article 56A of the Gaming Act within the EU law framework and confirms the consistent approach of the Maltese courts in holding that Austrian gambling judgments are contrary to Maltese public policy within the meaning of Article 45 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. The judgment was delivered on 30 January 2026 in proceedings brought by an Austrian player seeking recognition and enforcement in Malta of a 2022 decision of the Vienna Regional Civil Court. That foreign judgment had ordered the repayment of alleged gambling losses incurred on an online gaming platform licensed and regulated in Malta. Background to the proceedings The claimant relied on the Brussels I Recast Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, arguing that the Austrian judgment should be recognised and enforced in Malta following the abolition of exequatur procedures. The defendant, Virtual Digital Services Limited, opposed recognition, raising both procedural objections and substantive grounds under Articles 45 and 46 of the Regulation. Central to the defendant’s case was the argument that recognition of the foreign judgment would be manifestly contrary to Maltese public policy, and that enforcement would produce effects incompatible with Malta’s domestic legal order. During the pendency of the proceedings, Article 56A of the Gaming Act was enacted, and the Court considered its relevance as part of the applicable public policy framework governing recognition and enforcement. Limits of review under the Brussels I Recast Regulation As a preliminary matter, the Court emphasised that in proceedings for recognition or enforcement it is precluded from examining the merits of the foreign judgment. An examination of the Austrian decision showed that the compatibility of Austrian gambling law with EU law had already been considered and determined by the Austrian court — rightly or wrongly. Any attempt to re-argue that issue before the Maltese court was therefore inadmissible and irrelevant. The Court stressed that its task was not to reassess whether Austrian gambling legislation complied with EU law, but to determine whether recognition of the foreign judgment would, in itself, produce effects that are manifestly contrary to Malta’s public policy. This required an assessment of the impact that recognition would have on Malta’s domestic legal order. Impact on Maltese licences and fundamental EU freedoms In this regard, the Court observed that recognition of the Austrian judgment would have the immediate effect of undermining the legal force of a licence issued by the Malta Gaming Authority. By recognising the foreign judgment, Maltese law would give enforceable effect to a determination that the Maltese licence was ineffective for the provision of gaming services to Austrian players. Such an outcome, the Court held, would substantially interfere with the right of a Malta-licensed operator, lawfully established in an EU Member State, to provide services cross-border within the European Union. That right is one of the fundamental freedoms protected by EU law and forms part of the core legal framework recognised by the Maltese legal order. The decisive question was therefore whether the protection of that right forms part of Malta’s public policy. The Court answered that question in the affirmative. The crux of the Court’s reasoning: Article 56 TFEU and Article 56A At the heart of the judgment lies the Court’s finding that the right prejudiced by recognition of the foreign judgment is not merely a domestic or sector-specific interest, but a fundamental EU law right. The Court held that the right of a Malta-licensed operator to provide services in other Member States finds its legal basis in Article 56 TFEU, and that this same right is regarded by the Maltese State as essential and fundamental to its legal order. It is precisely this right that Article 56A of the Gaming Act seeks to protect as a matter of public policy. The Court found that recognition and enforcement of the Austrian judgment would seriously and irreversibly prejudice that right, by producing enforceable legal effects in Malta that negate the validity and effectiveness of a Maltese regulatory licence. In that sense, recognition of the foreign judgment would be contrary to Malta’s public policy, as both identified by the Court and expressly codified in Article 56A. The Court observed that, in the absence of EU legislation aimed at harmonising the gambling sector, each Member State remains free to regulate that sector within its own territory. Austria exercised that discretion when it legislated as it did, and Malta has exercised the same discretion through its own licensing and regulatory framework. The Court was careful to stress that it was not, and could not be, finding that Austrian gambling law is incompatible with EU law. Rather, its conclusion was confined to the effects of recognition. The recognition of a foreign judgment that fails to acknowledge the right of a Malta-licensed operator to provide services in another Member State would undermine an essential right forming part of the Maltese legal order and, for that reason, would be contrary to Malta’s public policy. Article 56A and its compatibility with EU law Against this background, the Court undertook a detailed examination of Article 56A of the Gaming Act. In a significant development for Maltese jurisprudence, it held that Article 56A is applicable in proceedings governed by the Brussels I Recast Regulation and that there was no basis to disapply it on grounds of incompatibility with EU law. The Court rejected the argument that Article 56A should be disapplied merely because it was enacted after the foreign judgment was delivered or after the proceedings had commenced. It held that the provision is procedural in nature and therefore applies to pending proceedings. The Court further held that the existence of infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission does not justify setting aside a law that remains validly in force. Crucially, the Court clarified that a domestic statute may be disapplied only where it is inconsistent with a hierarchically superior norm, whether constitutional, Convention-based or EU law. This explained why Article 56A had been disapplied in earlier cases concerning EU instruments that do not permit a public policy exception. By contrast, the Brussels I Recast Regulation expressly allows refusal of recognition on public order grounds. In that context, no inconsistency arises between Article 56A and EU law. The Court therefore found no valid basis to disapply Article 56A in the present proceedings. While similar conclusions had been reached in other recent First Hall judgments, appeals remain pending. For that reason, the Court considered it appropriate to conduct an autonomous assessment of the applicable principles rather than simply rely on prior decisions, ultimately reaching the same conclusion. The Court accordingly refused recognition and enforcement of the Austrian judgment in Malta. The decision reinforces the developing line of Maltese jurisprudence applying Article 45 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation to refuse recognition of foreign gambling judgments on public policy grounds, while providing the clearest judicial articulation to date of how Article 56A of the Gaming Act operates within the EU law framework. Dr Joseph Mizzi was counsel to Virtual Digital Services Limited in the proceedings.