Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1541835
I start by underscoring a very clear distinc- tion, one that should be glaringly evident even to the mentally challenged: Don't even start comparing me to ministers. When I, wielder of zero authority, face judges and magistrates with uncontested, if unpleasant, facts, that is dutiful, merito- rious freedom of expression. When pow- erful and feared ministers resort to exactly the same words that I use, that is imper- missible intimidation and a despicable abuse of the separation of powers. Capish? Or is even this too difficult to compre- hend? Malta has, tragically, faced colossal at- tacks on its judiciary by Labour MP Ramo- na Attard's companions in arms. When her idols silenced Malta's Consti- tutional Court for almost two years. When judges were physically assaulted, violent demonstrations on their doorsteps, their cars set on fire and overturned. When judges were suspended and changed during the hearing of sensitive cases. When her mentors declared that the on- ly courts they respected were those run by mobs— qrati tal-poplu (people's courts). When the courts of justice were brutally ransacked. When her government's ban on an Op- position meeting was overturned by the Constitutional Court and her party's agents tear-gassed and shot those who at- tended. When her government shielded comrade judges and magistrates facing impeach- ment by parliament for their corruption and assorted wrongdoing. When powerful ministers expressed their view on which friends should best be appointed judge and who should best be left out by the independent Judicial Ap- pointments Commission. When her government denied Malta— the only state in the whole of democratic Europe—of protection by the European Court of Human Rights. And scores of other glorious exhibitions of unbounded respect and gushing affection. Did you once hear Ramona Attard raise an inaudible decibel of protest at these hideous attacks on the judiciary? Do re- mind me if you did. These she saw as car- ing courtesies by her buddies. She is ever so scandalised when a feeble geriatric lists a squalid litany of documented and uncon- troverted failures by some members of the judiciary. But what her violent mates do repeatedly, goes down like honeyed nectar with her. It is I who brings blushes to her virginal cheeks, not her pals. How shame- ful of me not be ashamed of myself? She aims charlatan indignation at an un- challenged exposé by a constitutional ju- rist, and feigns unbearable, oh so hurtful, scandal at the truths he reveals. Maaaa, how shocking! This, from a person who throughout her whole life made sure no one could ever accuse her of uttering one whisper of re- proach at her friends' spectacular anti-ju- dicial violence and thuggery. One word which starts with Hy and ends with E pro- files Attard's fake indignation. And it's neither hyperbole nor hygiene. I am sad to have to divide the Maltese judiciary into two. Those who, despite the oppressive atmosphere created by Attard's buddies, soldier on, performing their du- ties, threatened, perhaps fearful, but with independence and impartiality. There are a number of these wonderful unsung he- roes, chapeau. And then there are the others, often ap- pointed beyond their abilities, those whose first aim is always to find escape routes to guarantee impunity to the powerful, those who bend triple backwards to denude human rights victims of any judicial pro- tection, and who expect their iced bun on retiring. These are the ones I expose and who At- tard champions. She has not even tried to prove me wrong in one detail but still finds it irresistible to root for those who shield the violators of human rights and for those who leave the victims unprotected. That is the difference between Ramona Attard and me. She is not ashamed of the differ- ence. I am proud of it. THE Industrial Tribunal explained that if an employment relationship is ter- minated prior to the commencement of work duties, then such termination cannot be considered to be unfair dis- missal. This was decided by the Indus- trial Tribunal on 24 November 2025 in in the case of Jacki McCarthy vs Atlas Language Institute. The applicant, McCarthy, contended that she had been unfairly dismissed from employment in breach of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act, Chapter 452 of the Laws of Mal- ta since the employer advised her that her employment was being terminat- ed before her commencement date. McCarthy had applied online for a teaching position and subsequently signed an employment contract on 19 June 2023, stipulating that her duties were to commence on the 21 August 2023. In the period leading up to the commencement date, the employ- er attempted to contact McCarthy on numerous occasions so that she can provide the necessary documents preceding the commencement of em- ployment. The applicant, however, failed to re- spond and never provided the docu- ments and information requested of her. Evidence presented before the Industrial Tribunal confirmed that McCarthy did not maintain commu- nication with the employer and never performed any duties. On 17 August 2023, having received no reply or com- munication from McCarthy, the re- spondent had no other option but to make alternative arrangements and find a substitute to cover the classes which originally had to be assigned to McCarthy. The respondents also in- formed McCarthy that due to not hav- ing received any communication from her in relation to her employment, they had no other choice but to withdraw the job offer and not proceed with her engagement. The applicant argued the principle of pacta sunt servanda and claimed that the signed contract created the em- ployment relationship, and insisted that the employment relationship does not commence on the commence- ment date indicated in the same em- ployment contract. Accordingly, she claimed that the withdrawal of the of- fer amounted to unfair dismissal. However, the employer maintained that the withdrawal occurred prior to the commencement of the employ- ment relationship. The employer fur- ther argued that even if an employ- ment relationship was deemed to have come into existence, the termination could not be deemed to be unfair. This is because the termination would have occurred during the probationary pe- riod, during which period, either party may terminate employment without providing a reason, in terms of Arti- cle 36(2) of Chapter 452 of the Laws of Malta. Nonetheless, the employer further maintained that it was the ap- plicant who effectively abandoned the contract through her failure to com- municate. In its consideration, the Industrial Tribunal acknowledged that although a contract had been signed, the appli- cant was under an obligation to main- tain communication with her prospec- tive employer. It also took into account that the termination occurred at a time when the applicant had not yet com- menced her duties and was not phys- ically present in Malta. The Industrial Tribunal concluded that the termina- tion took place during the probation- ary period and that, under Maltese law, the employer was not required to provide a justification for such termi- nation. Accordingly, the tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim and confirmed that the employer had acted within its legal rights. Therefore, no unfair dis- missal had occurred. 8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 7 DECEMBER 2025 OPINION & LAW An employment relationship can end before work begins Ramona Attard resents 'attacks on the judiciary' Giovanni Bonello Former judge at the ECHR CHARLENE BALDACCHINO GAUCI Senior Associate Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates The Industrial Tribunal concluded that the termination took place during the probationary period and that, under Maltese law, the employer was not required to provide a justification for such termination Did you once hear Ramona Attard raise an inaudible decibel of protest at these hideous attacks on the judiciary?