A dispute between neighbours over a kitchen drain has ended with the Civil Court ordering the restoration of the drainage system, after finding that its blockage amounted to an unlawful interference with the neighbouring property’s use.
In a judgement delivered on 5 November 2026 in the names Baldacchino vs Micallef et, the First Hall of the Civil Court, upheld a claim brought by Baldacchino against spouses Micallef, ordering the defendants to restore the drainage system within one month.
The case concerned two neighbouring properties which had originally formed part of a single family home before being divided into separate residences.
A drainage arrangement dating back more than a decade
The dispute arose from a drainage pipe connected to Baldacchino’s kitchen sink, which passed into the neighbouring property owned by the defendants.
The arrangement had existed for more than ten years, following the conversion of a bedroom into a kitchen around 2011.
Baldacchino maintained that the pipe had been installed with Micallef’s permission and had remained in use without difficulty for several years.
However, Micallef argued that permission had only been granted temporarily, on the understanding that the drainage connection would eventually be removed when renovations were carried out on his property.
The disagreement escalated in July 2023, when Baldacchino received a legal letter demanding that the drainage connection be removed within three days.
On 13 September 2023, Baldacchino discovered that water was no longer draining from her kitchen sink, effectively preventing her from using it.
After unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter with her neighbours, she reported the incident to the police and subsequently instituted court proceedings.
Court-appointed expert confirms deliberate blockage
During the proceedings, evidence emerged that the drainage system had been physically blocked.
The evidence established that the problem was not simply an ordinary drainage malfunction but resulted from a physical obstruction.
The defendants denied committing any unlawful act, maintaining that they had merely carried out works on their own drainage system and that Baldacchino’s arrangement had always been temporary.
Court finds Baldacchino’s version more credible
A central issue was whether Baldacchino’s use of the drain amounted to possession protected by law or was merely a temporary favour granted by her neighbour.
The Court examined the conflicting accounts and found Baldacchino’s version more consistent and credible whilst finding several inconsistencies in Micallef’s evidence.
While Micallef initially claimed in a legal letter that the pipe had been installed without his consent, he subsequently acknowledged having permitted its installation, although he maintained that this permission had been temporary.
The Court also observed that the defendants had initially denied interfering with the drainage system, notwithstanding evidence establishing that the pipe had indeed been blocked.
The Court concluded that Baldacchino had not been informed that the drainage arrangement was temporary and had been given to understand that she could continue using it.
The law does not allow people to take matters into their own hands
The case was decided under Article 535 of the Civil Code, which regulates an action known as ‘spoll’.
This legal remedy protects individuals from being deprived of possession or use of property through unilateral actions, even where the person responsible may claim ownership or other rights.
The Court explained that three elements must be established: prior possession or use, unlawful interference with that possession, and the commencement of proceedings within two months of the incident.
In this case, all three requirements were satisfied.
Importantly, the judgement did not determine whether Baldacchino enjoyed a permanent legal servitude over the neighbouring property. Rather, it confirmed that her established use of the drainage system could not be arbitrarily disturbed without following the appropriate legal procedures.
The Court consequently upheld Baldacchino’s claims and ordered the defendant’s to restore the drainage system within one month, ensuring that the kitchen sink regained its previous functionality, simultaneously authorising the plaintiff to carry out the necessary works herself at their expense.
The judgement reinforces the important principle that property disputes must be resolved through lawful procedures, and individuals cannot simply take the law into their own hands, even where they believe they are entitled to act.
The plaintiff was assisted by Dr Gianluca Cappitta.
The judgement may still be appealed.
