Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1535522
THE court cannot go outside the parame- ters of the law when it is deciding wheth- er to enforce a foreign judgment in Malta. This was held by the Court of Appeal on 8 May 2025, presided over by Chief Jus- tice Mark Chetcuti and judges Christian Falzon Scerri and Josette Demicoli. The case was lawyer Malcolm Mifsud noe. vs Winthrop Woodrow Asset Management SCC Limited. The case dealt with the recognition and enforcement of a judgment delivered in the Commercial Cassation Circuit in the United Arab Emirates under Article 826 and 828 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure. In his application, Malcolm Mifsud, representing Baha Khalid Ahmed Al Far explained that the Civil Court of First Instance in Dubai ordered Arisa Hold- ing Limited and Aria Asset Management Limited to pay him over €1 million and 6% interest. This ruling was confirmed on appeal and later in the Commercial Cas- sation Circuit. Winthrop Woodrow Asset Manage- ment SCC Limited, formerly known as Aria Asset Management (Malta) SCC Limited, filed a reply. The company ar- gued that it was not notified of the Unit- ed Arab Emirates (UAE) proceedings and therefore, the judgment should not be enforced. Another reason for the judg- ment not to be enforced is that it was in breach of an arbitration clause in a con- tract that they entered into and therefore, the court in the UAE could not decide the merits of the case. Thirdly, there was no order in the UAE judgment allowing its execution in Malta. The Court of First Instance held that the UAE judgment referred to Aria As- set management SCC, however, later the name of the company was changed to Winthrop Woodrow Asset Management SCC Limited. The first court held that for a judgment to be enforceable, the court must be convinced that the defendant is the cor- rect party of those proceedings. The first court said it acknowledged that the UAE court permitted a correc- tion in the name of the defendant, but the original judgment had the name of the defendant with 'Malta' and 'Limited' missing. The court argued that leaving the word 'Limited' out is not a small er- ror, since it identifies the entity as a com- pany. Due to these errors, the first court rejected the claim that the UAE judgment is enforceable in Malta. Mifsud appealed. The Appeals Court explained that according to Article 826 of the COCP a foreign (non-EU) judg- ment may be enforceable by a Maltese competent court. A judgment cannot be enforced only if: The judgment may be attacked in terms of a retrial; if the ruling was given by default and if it was contrary to public order. The Court of Appeal held that the court should give a narrow interpretation of Article 827 of the COCP and the court should not refuse to enforce a foreign judgment on a ground outside those listed in this article. The Maltese courts cannot enter into the merits of the case. Neither should the court compare and contrast the foreign law with Maltese law. It cannot argue that the judgment would not be enforceable if it were given in Malta. Winthrop argued that according to law, the case should be heard again if the sworn application is not notified to the losing party. The Court of Appeal held that the names of the parties in the case are im- portant, because they identify the parties who are bound by the judgment. On the other hand, if a party is identified, an er- ror in the name should not have any con- sequences. The Court of Appeal points out that the three UAE judgments did not indicate Winthrop as a party to the court action in the UAE. However, the compa- ny changed its name in 2020 from Aria Asset Management (Malta) Limited to Winthrop Woodrow Asset Management SCC Limited. The defendant company in the UAE judgment reads Aria Asset Man- agement SCC. In 2024, the UAE court al- lowed a correction to the judgment and the name changed to Aria Asset Manage- ment (Malta) SCC Limited. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the first court that Winthrop did not partici- pate in the proceedings in the UAE. The Court of Appeal moved to uphold the appeal and referred the case back to the first court to deal with the other two pleas raised by the Defendant. OPINION & LAW Law Report When enforcing a foreign judgment the court must apply the law restrictively LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates maltatoday | SUNDAY • 18 MAY 2025 8 James Vella Clark Euthanasia: A humane dilemma or a theological one? James Vella Clark is an artist THE current debate on euthanasia is both timely and deeply complex. As with many 'national conversations', the timing of this particular discussion stands to be debated. After all, in poli- tics, timing is always key. But that is not the point. What makes this issue espe- cially compelling is the need to strike a balance between what is humane and what is theological. Suffering challenges us all. It evokes a natural human response—compassion. No one wants to suffer, and no one likes to see others in pain. From a humane perspective, alleviating suffering seems not only reasonable, but necessary. Yet euthanasia is not just a medical or emotional issue—it is also a moral and philosophical one, rooted in long-standing beliefs about the sanctity of life. Religious teachings—particularly in predominantly Catholic societies like ours—uphold the idea that life is sacred, that suffering can hold spiritual mean- ing, and that the authority over life and death belongs to God alone. This per- spective reminds us that not everything painful is without purpose, and not all solutions lie within our grasp. I find the debate compelling partly be- cause at this point in time, I admit that I am still undecided. On one hand, I ad- mire the dignity with which many have endured pain—choosing to carry their burden with grace, even in the darkest of circumstances. On the other hand, I un- derstand the very human impulse to ask: 'What is the point?' In a world where convenience and efficiency have become virtues, choosing the 'easier' way out can appear not just tempting but logical. There is also a societal dimension to consider. We live in a culture that often seeks instant solutions, sometimes at the cost of reflection or deeper under- standing. Euthanasia must not become another expression of this instinct. And yet, speaking personally, if I were ever reduced to a permanent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, I would not want to become a burden to my loved ones. In such a scenario, I believe the option of euthanasia should be avail- able. If I were conscious and suffering, I might still choose to endure. But that is easy to say now. None of us truly knows what we would want when faced with such a reality. What is clear is that this is not an easy debate, nor should it be. The ethical, medical, and spiritual dimensions all deserve attention and respect. I can on- ly hope that those tasked with drafting policy and law are guided by people who are informed, compassionate, and above all, capable of rising above ideological noise. My own view, evolving as it may be, is this: Euthanasia should be legally avail- able under strict, transparent, and care- fully monitored safeguards. I do not feel that the State has the right to limit one's decision. The choice should be there and it should remain a personal decision made in accordance with one's con- science, personal beliefs, and dignity. This, to me, is what true freedom looks like — and it is a freedom worth debat- ing, carefully and responsibly.