Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1541557
IN a judgment delivered on 11 November 2025, the Court of Appeal, in its superior jurisdiction, upheld the damages award- ed by the First Hall of the Civil Court, in- cluding €10,000 granted arbitrio boni viri, which means according to equity, togeth- er with other heads of damages. Malta has a long-standing legal tradition that rejects the concept of moral damages. Maltese tort law is rooted in patrimonial damages, meaning that compensation is intended to restore the victim to the same financial position they occupied prior to the event giving rise to the damage. On 14 April 2010, a head-on collision occurred between two vehicles travelling in opposite directions. One vehicle veered into the oncoming lane, causing the crash. The driver of the tortious vehicle and another passenger died at the scene. The driver of the other vehicle, her minor daughter, and two additional passengers sustained injuries. The driver instituted proceedings against the heirs and insurers of the tort-feasor, seeking compensation for herself and her minor daughter, who suf- fered permanent disabilities of 20% and 2% respectively. Since the defendants did not contest liability for the accident, the court's task was limited to determining the amount of damages. The First Hall first assessed damnum emergens which are the actual expenses incurred as a result of the accident. The plaintiffs had incurred substantial medi- cal costs, both in Malta and abroad. The defendants argued that the foreign med- ical expenses, which were significant, should not be recoverable on the basis that they were unnecessary or not directly caused by the incident. The court reject- ed this plea, holding that although victims are expected to mitigate damages, they retain an absolute right to seek the most appropriate medical treatment. In this case, treatment abroad had been recom- mended by clinicians. The court further held that the availability of free healthcare in Malta does not constitute a valid legal basis to deny reimbursement of medical expenses. The court then assessed lucrum cessans which means the loss of future earnings. Additionally, and relevant for the pur- poses of this article, the court went on to liquidate an amount of €10,000 damages arbitrio boni viri. The court emphasised that in tort cases, the principle of restitu- tio in integrum requires it to restore the victim to the same position they would have been in had the wrongful act not occurred. The court observed that in this case it was impossible to place the victim in her pre-accident position, even from a psycho-physical perspective. For in- stance, if the victim previously practised sport or was able to take on multiple jobs, such opportunities were now foregone. Damages of this nature cannot be quanti- fied through rigid or mechanical criteria. The defendants appealed, while the plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal disputing the amounts awarded. For the purposes of this article, the relevant issue is the de- fendants' challenge to the €10,000 award. They argued this constituted moral dam- ages, which are not recoverable under Maltese law. The Appeals Court rejected this argument, holding that these damag- es represented future medical expenses falling within damnum emergens. However, the difficulty remains that these damages do not strictly correspond to specific, itemised expenses already in- curred and, given the nature of the treat- ment required, the real costs are likely to exceed €10,000. Moreover, by endorsing the First Hall's approach and expressly recognising the sum as damages award- ed arbitrio boni viri, the Appeals Court appears to have deviated from the estab- lished principle that damages in Malta must be exclusively pecuniary and aimed solely at reinstating the victim to their prior financial position. However, the legal position on this point remains ambiguous. Prior to 2018, the law did not expressly exclude moral dam- ages yet nevertheless, judicial doctrine consistently held that such damages were not recoverable. There was, however, a developing inclination to acknowledge psychological harm. In 2018, parliament amended the Civil Code to introduce the possibility of awarding compensation for "moral harm" and "psychological harm" yet only where the damage arises from particular criminal offences. In the Appeals Court judgment Ivan Az- zopardi et vs Alfred Sciberras et of 2024, the court held that the 2018 amendments constituted a "final blow" to non-pecuni- ary damages in tort. By expressly allowing such damages only in specific criminal of- fences, the legislator was deemed to have excluded the availability of non-pecuni- ary damages in all other cases. The author therefore argues that the 2018 amendments have added further uncertainty to Maltese tort law, and that there is a need for legislative action to guide the law towards a more humane and victim-centred approach. 8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 23 NOVEMBER 2025 LAW Appeals Court rules in favour of damages awarded by the Civil Court arbitrio boni viri Andrew Drago Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Europe today faces an important crossroad. We can either treat innovation as a race for competitive advantage, or as a shared journey towards resilience, dignity, and sustainability. WE live in an age where innovation has become the defining word of progress. It shapes how we speak about the econ- omy, education, healthcare, and even culture. Yet, somewhere along the way, innovation has begun to sound cold and mechanical, detached from the human realities it was meant to serve. If innovation becomes an end in itself, it risks losing its purpose. For what use is a faster algorithm if it leaves us more isolated? What value is there in great- er productivity if it erodes our sense of balance and wellbeing? What kind of progress are we celebrating if it forgets the people it was meant to uplift? Real innovation or the kind that stands the test of time, is not only technolog- ical, but moral. It begins not in labora- tories or boardrooms, but in our col- lective imagination. It begins when we dare to ask: How can we innovate to live better together? Through the Economy of Wellbe- ing study that I launched we asked hun- dreds of Maltese people what truly mat- ters to them. The answers were deeply human. People spoke about their fami- lies, their mental health, their commu- nities, their need for a cleaner environ- ment, and their hope for a fair chance to build a decent life. Economic growth matters, but it means little without the emotional and social foundations that make life worth living. That is why I've always argued that in- novation must serve wellbeing, not re- place it. Technology is a tool, not a des- tination. It should save time, not steal it. It should empower, not control. It should connect us, not divide us. When we forget that, we risk turning innova- tion into a race that nobody really wins. Europe today faces an important cross- road. We can either treat innovation as a race for competitive advantage, or as a shared journey towards resilience, dig- nity, and sustainability. The European Water Resilience Strategy, which I had the honour to lead, was built precisely on this idea. It recognised that innova- tion is not just about sensors and smart grids, but it's about protecting life it- self. It's about farmers having enough water to sustain their crops, industries having the stability to grow responsibly, and families having the confidence that their environment is safe. Malta, despite its size, has every rea- son to lead by example. Our geography, our agility, and our creativity allow us to experiment, adapt, and connect fast- er than larger countries can. We can be Europe's testing ground for innovation that works at a human scale be it in wa- ter management, sustainable tourism, balanced work-life, digital inclusion, and social wellbeing. But for that to happen, innovation cannot be stifled by bureaucracy or short-term politics. It needs an ecosys- tem built on trust and purpose—one that allows entrepreneurs to focus on building, researchers on discovering, and communities on thriving. Cutting red tape is not about deregulation; it is about creating breathing space for cre- ativity. The world is changing fast, and Mal- ta cannot afford to stand still. But nor should we run blindly. Progress with- out direction leads nowhere. The real challenge for this generation is not how to innovate more, but how to inno- vate better and ensure every new idea contributes to a fairer, greener, and more compassionate society. Because in the end, innovation is not about the machine, the code, or the app. It's about the people who use them, and the lives they touch. It's about the laughter of our children, the security of our elders, and the dignity of every worker. If Malta succeeds in giving innovation a soul, we will not only move faster, but we will move closer. Closer to each other, to our values, and to the kind of future that feels not just advanced, but truly human. Innovation with a soul Thomas Bajada PL MEP (S&D)