The Court of Appeal presided by Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff dismissed the appeal filed by Conrad Galea, trading as Chanlai Auto Dealer, against Neil Andrew Vella.
The judgement delivered on 4 February 2026, confirmed a €9,000 payment obligation arising from a post‑sale ‘return and resell’ arrangement.
In June 2017, Neil Andrew Vella bought a Vauxhall Insignia for €9,000 from Conrad Galea. The car soon proved defective. On 29 August 2017, the parties signed a simple agreement under which Vella returned the car to Galea and would receive €9,000 “upon sale of the vehicle”. Vella also claimed about €1,800 spent on repairs and parts.
In 2018, Vella sued, seeking a refund of the €9,000 and reimbursement of €1,800 in repairs. Galea argued there was no refund promise, only an undertaking to try to resell. He also argued that he was not the proper defendant in his “trading name” and that the action was premature because the car had not yet been sold. Vella held that the repairs claim was either not a recognised remedy or time‑barred.
The Magistrates Court in its judgement of 26 February 2025 partly upheld Vella’s claim. It rejected the “wrong defendant” objection, holding that suing Conrad Galea personally was correct because a trading name has no separate legal personality.
The court analysed whether Vella’s case related to latent defects as outlined in the Civil Code. It found that the June 2017 sale had been effectively rescinded when Vella returned the car and the parties signed the August agreement. Therefore, the case was not the classic defects action but an attempt to enforce the August 2017 agreement.
Since the August agreement did not preserve any right to repair costs, the court dismissed the claim for reimbursement of repairs notwithstanding references to defects.
The court also held that Vella’s right to payment depended on Galea finding a buyer. However, from Galea’s own testimony there had been at least one concrete purchase offer. The Magistrates Court ruled the condition had occurred and ordered Galea to pay €9,000 plus legal interest from 7 September 2018.
The Court of Appeal started by considering the first request with regard to the nature of the action. Galea argued the suit was really a redhibitory defects claim tied to the June 2017 sale. The Court of Appeal disagreed since the pleading itself anchored the claim in the 29 August 2017 agreement where it was written “I handed the car to Galea; upon sale I am to receive €9,000”. The court affirmed that the sale was rescinded when the car was returned and the agreement signed, and that the case properly enforced the August agreement, not the defects regime.
The second ground of appeal was whether the condition that triggered the payment had occurred. The Court of Appeal accepted that payment was tied to a suspensive condition—the car’s sale. But the court also stressed that this cannot suspend payment indefinitely while Galea kept both the vehicle and Vella’s €9,000. Evidence showed that on 20 October 2017 the car was re‑registered to Chanlai Auto Dealer, and that Galea had at least one purchase offer, which he declined. The court observed the First Court was overcautious in downplaying the legal effect of the re‑registration and, in any event, Galea was not free to refuse reasonable avenues to sell and then plead non‑occurrence of the condition. The Court of Appeal held that the condition was fulfilled so payment was due.
The Court of Appeal then dealt with the third ground of appeal. Galea argued that Vella should have asked the court to set a time limit instead of requesting payment. The court held that extended inaction and refusal to sell could amount to hindering payment. Vella’s case sought to recover the price under the August agreement and did not need a separate ‘fix‑a‑term’ action first.
The court then moved to dismiss the appeal.
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
