Winning a case abroad does not necessarily mean winning in Malta. Before a foreign judgement can be enforced locally, it must first satisfy the requirements laid down by Maltese law. The purpose of this legal framework is twofold: To facilitate the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements; while safeguarding the fundamental procedural guarantees recognised by Maltese law. It was this balance that was recently examined in the case Malcolm Mifsud nomine vs Winthrop Woodrow Asset Management SCC Limited in the First Hall Civil Court presided over by Judge Rachel Montebello, was recently called upon to examine in proceedings concerning the recognition and enforcement of a judgement delivered by the Commercial Cassation Circuit of the United Arab Emirates.
The applicant sought the recognition and enforcement in Malta of a judgement which had become final following proceedings before the Sharjah Federal Court, the First Civil Circuit of Appeal and ultimately the Commercial Cassation Circuit. The foreign courts had ordered the payment of AED 5,079,943.75, together with interest at 6% per annum, in favour of Bahaa Khalid Ahmed Al Far. Having exhausted the appellate process in the UAE, the successful party requested the Maltese courts to recognise and register the judgement in terms of Articles 826 and 828 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.
The respondent resisted the application on a number of grounds. It argued that it had never been properly notified of the foreign proceedings, that the foreign courts lacked jurisdiction because the underlying agreement contained an arbitration clause, and that the judgement sought to be enforced contained no executable order against it. These objections required the court to examine not whether the Dubai courts had reached the correct decision, but whether Maltese law permitted recognition of the foreign judgement in light of the statutory safeguards contained in the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.
The recognition of foreign judgements in Malta is principally governed by Articles 826 and 827 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure. Article 826 establishes the mechanism through which a foreign judgement may be recognised and enforced in Malta. It enables the successful party to seek execution of a judgement delivered abroad without instituting fresh proceedings on the merits of the dispute. Recognition, however, is not automatic. It is subject to the limitations contained in Article 827, which identifies the specific circumstances in which a Maltese court may refuse to recognise a foreign judgement. These include, amongst others, situations where the foreign court lacked jurisdiction, where the defendant was not properly notified of the proceedings, or where recognition would be contrary to Maltese public policy.
One of the most significant aspects of the judgement lies not in its ultimate conclusion, but in the court’s explanation of the function performed by Articles 826 and 827. Referring to previous Maltese jurisprudence, Judge Montebello emphasised that the grounds listed in Article 827 are exhaustive and must be interpreted restrictively. The court observed that the Maltese court must “refrain from reopening, investigating or passing judgement on the merits of the proceedings before the foreign court which resulted in the judgement sought to be enforced, and must not assume powers which the law does not confer upon it by refusing recognition for reasons not contemplated by Article 827.”
This passage encapsulates the philosophy underlying the Maltese system for the recognition of foreign judgements. Proceedings under Articles 826 and 827 are not a disguised appeal from the foreign decision. Their purpose is not to determine whether the foreign court correctly interpreted the evidence or applied its own law. Rather, the Maltese court’s task is confined to examining whether one of the limited statutory grounds preventing recognition has been established.
In reaching this conclusion, the court referred to earlier Maltese authority, including Joseph Zammit McKeon nomine vs Laferla Insurance Agency et, reaffirming the long-established principle that recognition proceedings are exceptional in nature and that the grounds upon which recognition may be refused should not be expanded beyond those expressly provided by the legislature.
The respondent’s principal argument centred on the existence of an arbitration clause contained in the underlying agreement. It contended that the foreign courts lacked jurisdiction because the parties had agreed that disputes arising under the contract were to be referred first to mediation and, failing settlement, to arbitration seated in Dubai. Consequently, it argued that Article 827(2), read together with Article 811(d) of the Code, entitled the Maltese court to refuse recognition on the basis that the foreign court had acted without jurisdiction.
The court rejected this submission. Judge Montebello explained that the provision does not authorise the Maltese courts to undertake a fresh examination of whether the foreign court correctly determined questions of jurisdiction according to its own legal system. Instead, the provision must be understood within the limited purpose of recognition proceedings. As the court explained: “It is not the function of the Maltese court under Articles 826 and 827 to reopen and investigate the merits of the dispute already determined by the foreign judgement, nor to determine the laws and legal principles applicable in the foreign jurisdiction.”
Having examined the documentary evidence, the court also observed that the respondent company had actively participated in the appellate proceedings before both the First Civil Circuit of Appeal and the Commercial Cassation Circuit. In those circumstances, it could not subsequently rely upon the statutory protections intended for parties who had not appeared or had not been properly brought before the foreign court.
The judgement therefore reinforces an important principle of private international law. Recognition proceedings are designed to promote legal certainty in cross-border litigation by ensuring that disputes finally determined abroad are not routinely re-litigated before the Maltese courts. Equally, the statutory safeguards contained in Article 827 preserve the ability of the Maltese courts to refuse recognition where fundamental procedural guarantees have genuinely been infringed. The balance struck by the legislation is therefore one between the finality of foreign judgements and the protection of essential principles of justice.
The decision also provides welcome clarification for practitioners involved in cross-border disputes. As international commerce continues to expand, foreign judgements will increasingly require recognition and enforcement in multiple jurisdictions. This judgment serves as a timely reminder that Maltese courts do not review the correctness of foreign decisions. Their role is considerably narrower—to determine whether the judgement satisfies the requirements established by Maltese law for recognition and enforcement.
For that reason, the significance of the judgement extends beyond the parties themselves. It reaffirms Malta’s commitment to the orderly recognition of foreign judicial decisions while preserving the limited but important safeguards enacted by legislators. In doing so, the Civil Court has provided valuable guidance on the operation of Articles 826 and 827 and reaffirmed that recognition proceedings are concerned not with reconsideration, but with recognition in accordance with the rule of law.
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
