Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1543288
IF a person in a relation- ship proves that they paid for works in their partner's prop- erty, they should be refunded. This was held in a judgment delivered by Magistrate Victor Axiak in CC vs JB on 9 Febru- ary 2026. In her application, CC asked the court to order the defend- ant to pay her €12,679, which sum represented a number of loans given to him. JB argued that no loan agree- ments existed between the two and the sums given were for purchases he had made for her. During proceedings, a Bank of Valletta official testified that the parties to the case asked the bank for a loan. The loan was paid through a joint account they held together. After July 2021, the loan re- payments were paid from an account JB had. The applicant, CC, testified and explained to the court that her claim was for repayment of several sums she gave her former boyfriend. Sometime after the relationship began, she moved in with him and volunteered to take care of his two children. The court heard how CC had a much higher salary than JB. Additionally, JB had asked CC to finance some works in their residence and although she first resisted, she later gave in and went to the bank to borrow €60,000. CC had used her property as a guarantee for the loan. The works were extensive and included a swimming pool. From the loan, CC paid €10,500, but received a refund from the defendant of €8,690, leaving a balance of €1,869. In addition to this, she claimed €10,810 due to additional sums given to JB. CC complained that she was paying for many of the ex- penses incurred by JB, such as cleaning of the house, ne- cessities for his son like shoes, clothes, phones and laptops. During cross-examination, CC denied that the claims includ- ed things that she made use of as well. She testified that she refused to take some of the ob- jects she had purchased when the relationship ended, be- cause she did not need them. JB testified that CC went to live with him because she wanted her daughter to make use of her apartment. It was CC, who insisted on chang- ing how JB's house looks. He could afford the works, how- ever, CC's ideas cost him dou- ble the costs. Therefore, he needed a loan. JB explained that he did contribute to the works carried out, such as the bathroom. He claimed that problems between them start- ed because CC was interfering with his relationship with his own children. When the rela- tionship ended, JB transferred the loan onto his name. The court then analysed the pleas entered by JB. The first was that there was no contract between the two. However, the court pointed at Article 1842 of the Civil Code, which reads: "Mutuum or loan for con- sumption is a contract where- by one of the parties delivers to the other a certain quantity of things which are consumed by use subject to the obligation of the borrower to return to the lender as much of the same kind and quality." This raises two elements. The first is the presence of the intent to transfer property, which in this case consisted of money. The second element is the obligation to refund an equivalent sum. There may be a verbal con- tract, which may be proved by circumstantial evidence. The loan that CC got involved in is known as 'di scopo', where one party makes payment for the interest of the other party. That party would need to re- fund the payments made. In this case, CC has to prove that the loan she took out and the expenses incurred were a loan to the defendant, JB. The court had to see whether the monthly payments made by CC in the joint account were a transfer of money to JB. The court quoted from the judgment of the Corte di Cassazione in Italy in which it was held that the element of "tradition" takes place when the money is made available to the other party—in the case under review, JB. From the bank statements of the joint account, CC never withdrew money for her use. Money from her personal account went to the joint account to service the loan, which loan was used for works in JB's property. On this basis, CC should have been refunded, so much so that before the court case was instituted, JB had re- funded in part the money she was due. The second plea referred to objects that CC had pur- chased and which she could take back. The court pointed out that these objects were purchased for the defendant's house. JB tried to argue that CC had lived at his house for several years, rent free. How- ever, messages exchanged be- tween the parties show that these items were purchased specifically for the defendant. CC was justified to expect a refund for these items. The court then decided that the amount due to CC was €6,249. It ordered JB to pay that amount. 8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 15 FEBRUARY 2026 LAW Person who paid for loan to refurbish partner's residence must be refunded MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Messages exchanged between the parties show that these items were purchased specifically for the defendant. CC was justified to expect a refund for these items