When there is evidence related to foreign law in a court case, this should be dealt with as a fact and not as a point of law. This was held in Godwin Azzopardi vs Mary sive May Cauchi et, decided by the First Hall of the Civil Court on 28 November 2025. The court was presided over by Judge Audrey Demicoli.
Plaintiff, Godwin Azzopardi, asked the court to enforce a promise of sale agreement on properties in Birkirkara. The promise of sale agreement was signed in 2020. The mother of the defendants purchased a part share of these properties. This meant that their father was a co-owner, however, he left Malta and nobody knew who his heirs were. This meant that the defendants’ title was dubious. The plaintiff argued that he wanted to purchase that share of the property where the defendants had title at a price proportionate to the title they owned.
The defendants argued that the notary did not explain in detail what the issue was but simply explained that there is a problem. They claimed that the plaintiff in fact wanted an extension of the promise of sale agreement.
On 28 September 2023, the First Hall of the Civil Courts agreed with the plaintiff and upheld his requests and ordered the defendants to sell their part of the property. However, the defendants appealed the judgement, stating that it was not clear which part of the property they were to transfer.
The Court of Appeal in its judgement of 3 December 2024 agreed and asked the court of first instance to determine the share of the defendants in the properties which were up for sale.
In a subsequent judgement on 28 November 2025, the First Hall of the Civil Court held that there is no disagreement that the defendants had a share of the properties in question after the death of their mother. However, the notary explained that the defendants owned half of one property and 9/16 of two other properties, which were subject to the promise of sale agreement. The dispute arose on that share that the defendants’ father held. The father died in Canada in 1999 and there was doubt as to whether there were other heirs apart from the defendants.
During the court sittings, the defendants presented a report from a Canadian investigator who established, who potentially could be the defendants’ father’s heirs in Canada. The report identified his second wife. They had a daughter, but she had died. The defendants’ lawyer received a power of attorney from the widow in Canada in order to renounce her share of her late husband’s estate in Malta. This was also filed in court. The lawyer, Malcolm Mifsud, also filed a legal opinion from a Canadian lawyer which stated that the defendants’ father died without a will and therefore, all the property he had went to his second wife. The legal opinion stated that there was no need to undergo a procedure of probate in Canada as all the property was transferred to his widow. There is no other person who may have a claim on the defendants’ father’s estate. If another person had a claim, he or she should have made this claim within 15 years from his death. It is clear that the father died 25 years ago.
The court quoted a previous judgement Rose Grima noe vs Carmen Vella decided on 20 July 2020 wherein it was held that any issue on foreign law, should be treated as a point of fact and not a point of law. The court quoted from Cheshire and North’s book Private International Law:
“Foreign law is, therefore, treated as a question of fact … the relevant foreign law must be proved like all other matters of which no knowledge is imputed to the judge, ‘by appropriate evidence, i.e. by properly qualified witnesses’, unless both parties agree to leave the investigation to the judge and to dispense with the aid of witnesses …”
The plaintiff failed to file a legal opinion that contested the defendants’ argument and therefore, this issue became a point of fact. The court held that it was convinced that the defendants are now 100% owners of the properties subject to the promise of sale agreement.
Therefore, the court ordered that the sale should proceed, with the plaintiff paying the full price to acquire the defendants’ properties.
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
