The Appeals Court presided by Judge Lawrence Mintoff, confirmed a refund of €5,200 after a new electric scooter developed repeated defects and remained unreliable despite numerous repairs.
The judgement, delivered on 23 September 2026 in Christian Mifsud vs Auto Sales Limited, concerned an appeal from a decision of the Consumer Claims Tribunal dated 10 December 2025. The tribunal had ordered the company to refund the full purchase price of €5,200, against the return of the scooter.
Mifsud purchased the electric scooter from the company in September 2024. Within only a few days, he noticed a noise coming from its rear section and returned it to the seller for repairs. Approximately one month after those repairs, the scooter had to be taken back again, both because the noise persisted and because further problems had developed with its battery.
The consumer was informed that he would have to wait five weeks for the necessary parts to be imported. When he received no further information, he arranged an appointment for 21 January 2025. Before that date, however, the scooter stopped working completely and had to be towed to the company. It was then decided that the battery would have to be sent abroad. In the meantime, the company provided a replacement battery.
That solution was also unsuccessful. A few days later, the scooter developed an “engine fault”, and further defects emerged in February 2025. Mifsud consequently sought a refund of the €5,200 purchase price. He also pointed out that he had paid a further €170 for a top box and would have to repay 75% of a government grant received through Transport Malta. The company refused to refund the purchase price.
Before the tribunal, Auto Sales Limited argued that the claim was unfounded in fact and law. It admitted that Mifsud had purchased the scooter for €5,200 but maintained the vehicle was “fit for purpose”. According to the company, the battery problem was being addressed as part of a manufacturer’s recall and the consumer had been provided with another battery. It contended that it had acted in good faith and in accordance with the warranty, and that it could not be held responsible for misuse of the scooter.
The tribunal nevertheless found in favour of the consumer. It relied principally on Article 73 of the Consumer Affairs Act, Chapter 378 of the Laws of Malta, which requires goods to be delivered in conformity with the contract of sale, including having the functionality required of them. In the event of a lack of conformity, the consumer is entitled to have the goods brought into conformity through repair or replacement, or to obtain a price reduction or termination of the contract.
The tribunal also referred to Article 75(2) of the same act, which provides that repairs must be carried out within a reasonable time from the moment the seller is informed of the lack of conformity and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking into account the nature of the goods and the purpose for which they were required.
The tribunal observed that the company had done everything reasonably possible to have the scooter brought into conformity and had continued to give the seller opportunities to rectify the defects. It nevertheless held that there was a limit to the number of times a product should be repaired, especially where the product was new and the repairs caused inconvenience. This was particularly relevant because the product was a vehicle or scooter intended for daily use and because defects could pose a danger to the rider.
The tribunal referred to Article 74(3)(b) of the Consumer Affairs Act, under which the consumer is entitled to terminate the contract where the lack of conformity persists despite the seller’s attempts to rectify the situation. It concluded that termination was the most appropriate outcome and ordered the refund of the full purchase price against the return of the scooter.
On appeal, the company argued, among other things, that the tribunal’s decision was null because the proceedings had referred to it as “Kind’s Auto Sales Limited” rather than “Auto Sales Limited”. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument. Although it found that an error had indeed been made in the company’s name, the company had participated normally in the proceedings, filed its reply, presented evidence and lodged the appeal itself. Its registration number, C 491, had always been correctly stated, and there could be no genuine doubt as to the identity of the defendant.
The court stressed that nullity is an extreme remedy which is not favoured by Maltese law. It referred to the power granted by the law to correct errors in the names of parties where no prejudice has resulted. The court therefore ordered that the word “Kind’s” be deleted wherever it appeared in the proceedings. In doing so, it followed the principle that an irregularity should not invalidate proceedings when the identity of the party is clear and no procedural prejudice has been caused. The judgement also referred to Carmelo Cassar Parnis vs Gustavo Soler noe, decided on 11 March 1949, in relation to the strict and exceptional nature of nullity.
On the substantive issues, Auto Sales Limited argued that the complaints related mainly to noise and minor defects connected with a manufacturer’s recall. It maintained that the recall work had been completed, that the defects were temporary and repairable, and that it had remained willing to carry out any further repairs. It also argued that termination was an extreme remedy, that the required hierarchy of remedies had not been followed, and that the scooter’s use, depreciation and the government grant should have been considered.
The court rejected these submissions. The evidence showed that the defects had appeared only days after purchase and continued despite repeated interventions, including work carried out abroad. After the original battery was returned and reinstalled following the recall process, further defects appeared within days. The court held that this was not a “temporary repairable issue” but a continuing failure to bring the scooter into conformity with the contract.
The court ruled that repeated repairs, without success, could not be regarded as having been carried out within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenience. A new scooter purchased towards the end of 2024 had repeatedly been taken in for repairs, leaving the consumer unable to use it and requiring him to incur further inconvenience, including towing expenses. The defects could also create a risk on the road.
The court made clear that the fact that the problems arose from manufacturer recalls did not remove the seller’s obligations. Whatever their technical origin, the decisive fact was that the scooter remained non-conforming after the repairs.
The court further held that the repairs had effectively failed and the consumer’s continued use of the scooter did not alter that conclusion, since he had reported the defects promptly and cooperated fully with the proposed repairs. The court said the consumer should not bear the cost of any depreciation in value in circumstances where the scooter had never been satisfactorily brought into conformity.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the tribunal’s decision was confirmed in full. The costs of both instances were ordered against Auto Sales Limited.
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
