Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1542182
THIS is the season when we exchange wishes for a happy Christmas and a happy New Year with family, friends, colleagues, neighbours, and the wider community. Yet for persons with disa- bilities, good wishes alone do not trans- late into a better quality of life. Throughout the past year, persons with disabilities, their families, NGOs, and academics have repeatedly raised their voices to identify the systemic bar- riers, failures, and injustices that con- tinue to deny persons with disabilities the right to live independently and with dignity in the community. These con- cerns can no longer be ignored. Responsibility does not lie with one ministry alone. Almost every minis- try is directly accountable for policies, services, or decisions that continue to limit the lives of persons with disabili- ties. Each ministry must take ownership of its responsibilities and acknowledge how its actions—or lack of them—are contributing to exclusion, inequality, and hardship. Persons with disabilities are not a ho- mogeneous group. Different disabilities require different solutions. This makes it essential for all authorities to genu- inely respect and implement the prin- ciple of 'nothing about us without us'. Persons with disabilities, through their representative NGOs, must be equal partners in all discussions, re- forms, and decision-making processes. Anything less is a failure of inclusion. At present, this principle remains large- ly unfulfilled. MFOPD calls on those in positions of authority to move beyond symbolic ges- tures and rhetoric. The spirit of Christ- mas must be reflected in concrete ac- tion, guided by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD). Persons with disabilities must no longer be treated as an after- thought, but as central stakeholders in shaping policies that affect Maltese so- ciety. Real improvement in the quality of life of Maltese citizens will only be achieved when persons with disabilities are placed at the centre of all policy discus- sions and implementation processes. This is not optional—it is a legal, moral, and human rights obligation. MFOPD expects that 2026 will mark a decisive shift. Policies and initiatives across all ministries that affect citizens' lives must be developed through mean- ingful, structured, and ongoing dialogue with persons with disabilities and their NGOs. Consultation must be genuine, not tokenistic. The Christmas message must be one of accountability and commitment to change. Attitudes must change—par- ticularly among those who have the power to remove barriers and deliver equality. MFOPD reminds Malta of its commit- ment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustain- able Development and the Sustainable Development Goals. The promise to leave no one behind must be honoured in practice, not just in words. Happy Christmas and a determined call for a just, inclusive, and rights- based New Year. WHEN there is evidence related to for- eign law in a court case, this should be dealt with as a fact and not as a point of law. This was held in Godwin Azzopar- di vs Mary sive May Cauchi et, decided by the First Hall of the Civil Court on 28 November 2025. The court was pre- sided over by Judge Audrey Demicoli. Plaintiff, Godwin Azzopardi, asked the court to enforce a promise of sale agreement on properties in Birkir- kara. The promise of sale agreement was signed in 2020. The mother of the defendants purchased a part share of these properties. This meant that their father was a co-owner, however, he left Malta and nobody knew who his heirs were. This meant that the defendants' title was dubious. The plaintiff argued that he wanted to purchase that share of the property where the defendants had title at a price proportionate to the title they owned. The defendants argued that the no- tary did not explain in detail what the issue was but simply explained that there is a problem. They claimed that the plaintiff in fact wanted an exten- sion of the promise of sale agreement. On 28 September 2023, the First Hall of the Civil Courts agreed with the plaintiff and upheld his requests and ordered the defendants to sell their part of the property. However, the de- fendants appealed the judgment, stat- ing that it was not clear which part of the property they were to transfer. The Court of Appeal in its judgment of 3 December 2024 agreed and asked the court of first instance to deter- mine the share of the defendants in the properties which were up for sale. In a subsequent judgment on 28 No- vember 2025, the First Hall of the Civil Court held that there is no disagree- ment that the defendants had a share of the properties in question after the death of their mother. However, the notary explained that the defendants owned half of one property and 9/16 of two other properties, which were sub- ject to the promise of sale agreement. The dispute arose on that share that the defendants' father held. The father died in Canada in 1999 and there was doubt as to whether there were other heirs apart from the defendants. During the court sittings, the defend- ants presented a report from a Cana- dian investigator who established, who potentially could be the defendants' father's heirs in Canada. The report identified his second wife. They had a daughter, but she had died. The de- fendants' lawyer received a power of attorney from the widow in Canada in order to renounce her share of her late husband's estate in Malta. This was al- so filed in court. The lawyer, Malcolm Mifsud, also filed a legal opinion from a Canadian lawyer which stated that the defendants' father died without a will and therefore, all the property he had went to his second wife. The legal opinion stated that there was no need to undergo a procedure of probate in Canada as all the property was trans- ferred to his widow. There is no other person who may have a claim on the defendants' father's estate. If another person had a claim, he or she should have made this claim within 15 years from his death. It is clear that the fa- ther died 25 years ago. The court quoted a previous judg- ment Rose Grima noe vs Carmen Vel- la decided on 20 July 2020 wherein it was held that any issue on foreign law, should be treated as a point of fact and not a point of law. The court quoted from Cheshire and North's book Pri- vate International Law: "Foreign law is, therefore, treated as a question of fact ... the relevant foreign law must be proved like all other mat- ters of which no knowledge is imputed to the judge, 'by appropriate evidence, ie by properly qualified witnesses', un- less both parties agree to leave the in- vestigation to the judge and to dispense with the aid of witnesses ..." The plaintiff failed to file a legal opin- ion that contested the defendants' ar- gument and therefore, this issue be- came a point of fact. The court held that it was convinced that the defend- ants are now 100% owners of the prop- erties subject to the promise of sale agreement. Therefore, the court ordered that the sale should proceed, with the plaintiff paying the full price to acquire the de- fendants' properties. 8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 21 DECEMBER 2025 OPINION & LAW Foreign law is to be considered as a point of fact Foreign law is, therefore, treated as a question of fact ... the relevant foreign law must be proved like all other matters of which no knowledge is imputed to the judge Christmas wishes are not enough: Persons with disabilities demand action Marthese Mugliette President Malta Federation of Organisations Persons with Disability Attitudes must change— particularly among those who have the power to remove barriers and deliver equality MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates