Contractors’ Liability for Defective Works: Key Lessons from a Recent Judgment

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.