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 [email protected].

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.  

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.