Lawyer Joseph Borda

07/07/2026

https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/court_and_police/142913/police_arrest_two_men_in_possession_of_drugs_and_fake_documents

The two men were charged with drug trafficking, possession of controlled substances and participation in an alleged criminal organisation after police seized amphetamine, ketamine and other suspected drugs during searches 

28/05/2026

A judgement concerning actio rei vendicatoria - when one wants to claim back one's property which is in the possession of third parties without any title.
This judgment concerned a dispute between two neighbouring apartment owners in Paola over who owned a particular portion of roof space at the front of the building. The plaintiffs claimed that this roof area belonged exclusively to them because it was allegedly included in the plans attached to the contract by which they purchased their apartment in 1980. The defendants denied this and argued that the disputed area had never formed part of the plaintiffs’ property.

The Court heard that, when the plaintiffs originally bought their apartment, they acquired the upper-floor apartment together with a divided portion of the roof situated at the back of the building. The defendants later purchased the lower apartment together with the front portion of the roof. Some years afterwards, both parties agreed to construct balcony extensions at the front of the building. The plaintiffs later roofed over their balcony extension so that its roof became level with the roof area above.

Problems arose when the defendants obtained a development permit to build further on the roof. The plaintiffs objected because the approved plans included construction over the roof area above the balcony extension which they claimed belonged to them. They therefore filed an injunction and asked the Court to declare that the disputed roof area was their exclusive property and to prevent the defendants from accessing or building on it.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs could not prove ownership of the disputed area. They pointed out that the balcony extension did not even exist when the plaintiffs purchased the property in 1980, since the balconies were only constructed later, after a permit issued in 1985. They also produced another copy of the original contract which did not contain the plan relied upon by the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, the disputed space originally consisted only of open air above the lower property and could not have formed part of the plaintiffs’ purchase.

The Court explained that this type of case is known as a rei vindicatoria action, where the person claiming ownership bears a very heavy burden of proof. The plaintiffs had to prove clearly and without doubt that they had an original legal title to the disputed property. It was not enough simply to show that the defendants might not own it.

After examining the evidence, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the disputed roof area formed part of their original purchase. The Court accepted that the balcony extensions were only built years after the 1980 contract and that the disputed area could not have existed in the form claimed by the plaintiffs at the time of purchase. The Court also found that, although the plaintiffs paid for the construction of their balcony extension, this did not automatically give them ownership of the roof area above it. In fact, the evidence showed that the defendants had been using that roof section as part of their own roof area.

For these reasons, the Court upheld the defendants arguments and dismissed the plaintiffs’ case. Since the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the remaining legal arguments raised by the defendants. Costs of the case were ordered against the plaintiffs.

Defendants were represented by Dr. Joseph Borda

The full judgement can be found here ⬇️

06/03/2026

https://timesofmalta.com/article/five-motoring-schools-threaten-sue-tm-shortage-driving-instructors.1125063

Schools say TM has failed to provide examiners to certify instructors since October

05/02/2026

https://timesofmalta.com/article/man-pleads-guilty-assaulting-ex-lawyer-warns-miseenscene-claims.1123648

The court heard allegations that the police report was filed to pressure repayment, claims denied by the victim’s side

12/01/2026

Magistrate slams Police after failing to investigate a report of voluntary property damage to a luxury flat.

In a judgment delivered on 12 January 2026, the Court of Magistrates (Criminal Jurisdiction) sharply rebuked the Police for failing to act on a serious complaint of voluntary damage to property, upholding a challenge brought by the owners of a luxury apartment in Pender Gardens.
The case arose after the tenant abruptly vacated the property at the end of the lease. When the owners accessed the apartment, they were confronted with extensive damage, including a shattered kitchen counter-top and appliances, damaged furniture and blinds, and torn sofa and curtains, amongst others.
The owners subsequently engaged an architect to formally document the damage and a police report was filed shortly thereafter.
Strangely, the Police refused to issue charges. Without inspecting the property or summoning the tenant to give his version, the Police concluded that the damage amounted to nothing more than ordinary “wear and tear”.
Faced with this inaction, the owners filed a challenge under Article 541 of the Criminal Code — a procedure that allows the criminal courts to intervene where police inaction is unjustified - we call it a challenge to the police commissioner (sfida lil kummissarju).
In its decision, the Court held that the Police acted unlawfully by refusing to investigate and by substituting assumptions for proper inquiry. The Magistrate stressed that the Police are not required to reach moral certainty before taking action, but only to assess whether allegations merit investigation.
The Court ordered the Police to issue charges against the tenant in accordance with the law and directed that the acts be transmitted to the Attorney General, reaffirming a fundamental principle: it is ultimately for the courts to determine guilt or innocence — the role of the Police is to investigate and to prosecute where a prima facie case exists.

Applicant was represented by Dr. Joseph Borda

15/12/2025

Buyers lose €64,500 deposit on a promise of sale (konvenju) after failing to complete property purchase

In a judgment delivered by Judge Henri Mizzi on 15 December 2025, the Civil Court (First Hall) held that the buyers were not in a position to complete the purchase of a Marsaxlokk property within the validity of a promise of sale and therefore could not validly compel the sellers to proceed with the sale. The Court also ordered that the €64,500 deposit be forfeited in favour of the sellers.

The facts of the case were that the buyers had entered into a promise of sale valid for nine months. The agreement was subject to several conditions, including that they obtain bank financing within 14 weeks, that the property be compliant with planning permits, that searches be in order, and that the buyers conclude the sale of their own property. The parties further agreed that if the buyers failed to complete the sale without a valid reason at law or under the contract, the €64,500 deposit held by the notary would be forfeited.

In February 2023, as the promise of sale was about to expire, the buyers did not have sufficient financing to proceed and requested an extension, which one of the sellers refused to sign. The buyers then attempted to secure a bridge loan; however, by that stage it was impossible for the bank to process the facility and complete the contract within the remaining five days.

Instead of withdrawing from the agreement, the buyers attempted to enforce the purchase in court by filing an official letter before the expiry of the promise of sale and instituting court proceedings within 30 days.

The Court held that this procedure can only be used where the other party unjustifiably refuses to sign the final deed within the validity of the promise of sale, and not where it is the buyer who is unable to complete due to lack of financing. The Court further ruled that an extension of a promise of sale is not a right, and that in these circumstances the buyers should have exercised their right to withdraw.

As a result, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and ordered that the €64,500 deposit be forfeited in favour of the defendants, together with costs. Judgement is currently subject to appeal.

Defendant was represented by Dr Joseph Borda.

13/11/2025

French Embassy in Malta found guilty of breaching Maltese employment laws.

In a judgement delivered by the Industrial Tribunal on 11 November 2025 in a case brought against the French Embassy in Malta, it emerged that the plaintiff had been employed locally as a Finance and Administration employee (accountant) on an indefinite contract. Throughout his employment he received positive feedback and was entrusted with increasing responsibilities.
On 12 April 2023, the plaintiff was suddenly dismissed through a termination letter citing redundancy, this was done without any prior discussion or consultation. The Embassy argued that it had received instructions from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to eliminate the plaintiff’s role and replace it with a French civil servant to be deployed to Malta.
The plaintiff alleged that the redundancy was orchestrated and just used as a pretext to replace him with an expatriate civil servant from France. He had not been consulted, warned, or offered an alternative post, and the dismissal resulted in four months of unemployment, significant financial hardship and a long-term salary reduction.
The Embassy attempted to have the case dismissed by invoking diplomatic immunity. However, the plaintiff successfully argued that his employment contract expressly subjected the relationship to Maltese employment law and Maltese courts. The Industrial Tribunal confirmed it had full jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Tribunal held that a genuine redundancy requires the role to be truly abolished. In this case, evidence showed that the incoming civil servant assumed the same core duties as the plaintiff, the total number of Embassy staff did not change, and the decision to terminate the plaintiff had been taken before any restructuring actually occurred.
The Tribunal also found no evidence of consultation, representation, or any attempt to mitigate the consequences of dismissal—contrary to established redundancy requirements. The plaintiff’s performance was never in question; in fact, the Embassy acknowledged he had consistently performed well.
The Industrial Tribunal declared the dismissal unjust and awarded the plaintiff €8,500 in global compensation, taking into account his four months of unemployment, the reduced salary in his new job, the cost of living, and his five years of service with the Embassy.

Plaintiff was represented by Dr Joseph Borda.

The full judgement can be found here ⬇️

12/11/2025

When a Simple WhatsApp Message Saves You from Losing €49,000

In a recent judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in its superior jurisdiction, the Court confirmed a First Hall decision ordering a defendant company to refund €49,000 to the plaintiffs. The amount had been paid on a promise of sale (konvenju) signed in 2007, which was later cancelled, yet the deposit was never returned. This court case was filed in 2023.

Ordinarily, the biggest hurdle for someone seeking to recover money after so many years is prescription — the legal time limit within which one may bring an action. Under Article 2156(f) of the Civil Code, today's action would have become time-barred after five years in fact defendant in this case relied on that rule in an attempt to have the claim dismissed.

However, before filing the case, the plaintiffs had repeatedly contacted the defendant, sending messages and making calls demanding repayment. One particular message proved decisive. In 2022, the defendant had written:

“When I have the money I will pay you.”

That short message changed everything. Under Article 2133 of the Civil Code, when a debtor acknowledges a debt, the running of prescription is interrupted and starts running afresh. This meant that the plaintiffs’ claim remained valid, as the prescriptive period recommenced from 2022.

The Court also dismissed all other arguments raised by the defendant and ultimately ordered the restitution of the €49,000, together with interest and the costs of both the first instance and the appeal.

Plaintiffs were represented by Dr Joseph Borda.

14/07/2025

Terms and conditions must be attached to a contract, understood and signed by both parties - A Consumer Claims Tribunal case regarding the refund of Kindergarten Fees. (Kitty Varga vs Sabrina Parnis on behalf of Little Einstein’s Montessori System Child Care & School)
In this case the claimant sought for a refund of €1,600 being kindergarten and stationery fees following the withdrawal of her twin children from the kindergarten prior to the start of term.
The defendant contended that all fees were non-refundable and that the claimant had been informed of this condition at the time of enrollment.
The defendant stated that the application had a tick box which said that the school’s terms and conditions had been read and understood - these however were only found in the school’s website and were not attached to the application or signed by the parties.
The claimant argued that all terms and conditions must be explicitly agreed upon and clearly communicated, especially in cases involving financial commitments and held that it is the service provider’s responsibility to ensure that terms and conditions are fully understood and accepted by the consumer.
The claimant referred to Article 44 of the Consumer Affairs Act (Chapter 378 of the Laws of Malta) on unfair contract terms and the Tribunal agreed that essential clauses, particularly those limiting consumer rights, must not be implied but specifically agreed upon by both parties.
The Tribunal concluded by ordering defendant to refund the full amount of €1.600 plus legal interest and costs.
Claimant was represented by Dr. Joseph Borda

06/07/2025

You’re Invited

➡️ Are you, or someone you know trapped in an abusive situation?
➡️ Do you want to take action but fear things might get worse?
➡️ Are you considering separation but unsure how to take the first step?
➡️ Do you think that you are saving marriage, the children and family life by submitting?
➡️ Or perhaps you’re simply looking for clear, firsthand information on these sensitive issues?

If any of these questions resonate with you, I invite you to join me for an informative and supportive discussion covering:
☑️ Understanding domestic violence
☑️ What really happens after a report is made
☑️ How to take the first steps toward safety and freedom
☑️ How to react

🗓️ Date: Friday, 18 July 2025
🕡 Time: 18:30 – 20:30
📍 Venue: 16, Cospicua Road, Paola
💶 Contribution: €25 (all proceeds will be donated to Dar tal-Providenza)
📲 To Book: Message via WhatsApp on +356 79475822 (Seats are limited)

This session offers a safe, respectful space to listen, ask questions, and empower yourself or someone you care about.

Looking forward to welcoming you,
Joseph