Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1545722
8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 5 JULY 2026 LAW When does a foreign judgment become a Maltese one? JULIAN MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates WINNING a case abroad does not necessarily mean winning in Malta. Before a foreign judg- ment can be enforced locally, it must first satisfy the require- ments laid down by Maltese law. The purpose of this legal frame- work is twofold: To facilitate the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments; while safe- guarding the fundamental pro- cedural guarantees recognised by Maltese law. It was this balance that was recently examined in the case Malcolm Mifsud nomine vs Winthrop Woodrow Asset Man- agement SCC Limited in the First Hall Civil Court presided over by Judge Rachel Montebello, was recently called upon to examine in proceedings concerning the recognition and enforcement of a judgment delivered by the Com- mercial Cassation Circuit of the United Arab Emirates. The applicant sought the recog- nition and enforcement in Malta of a judgment which had become final following proceedings be- fore the Sharjah Federal Court, the First Civil Circuit of Appeal and ultimately the Commercial Cassation Circuit. The foreign courts had ordered the payment of AED 5,079,943.75, together with interest at 6% per annum, in favour of Bahaa Khalid Ahmed Al Far. Having exhausted the ap- pellate process in the UAE, the successful party requested the Maltese courts to recognise and register the judgment in terms of Articles 826 and 828 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Proce- dure. The respondent resisted the ap- plication on a number of grounds. It argued that it had never been properly notified of the foreign proceedings, that the foreign courts lacked jurisdiction be- cause the underlying agreement contained an arbitration clause, and that the judgment sought to be enforced contained no ex- ecutable order against it. These objections required the court to examine not whether the Dubai courts had reached the correct decision, but whether Maltese law permitted recognition of the foreign judgment in light of the statutory safeguards contained in the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure. The recognition of foreign judg- ments in Malta is principally gov- erned by Articles 826 and 827 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure. Article 826 es- tablishes the mechanism through which a foreign judgment may be recognised and enforced in Malta. It enables the successful party to seek execution of a judgment de- livered abroad without instituting fresh proceedings on the merits of the dispute. Recognition, how- ever, is not automatic. It is subject to the limitations contained in Article 827, which identifies the specific circumstances in which a Maltese court may refuse to rec- ognise a foreign judgment. These include, amongst others, situ- ations where the foreign court lacked jurisdiction, where the defendant was not properly noti- fied of the proceedings, or where recognition would be contrary to Maltese public policy. One of the most significant as- pects of the judgment lies not in its ultimate conclusion, but in the court's explanation of the function performed by Articles 826 and 827. Referring to previ- ous Maltese jurisprudence, Judge Montebello emphasised that the grounds listed in Article 827 are exhaustive and must be inter- preted restrictively. The court observed that the Maltese court must "refrain from reopening, in- vestigating or passing judgment on the merits of the proceedings before the foreign court which resulted in the judgment sought to be enforced, and must not as- sume powers which the law does not confer upon it by refusing recognition for reasons not con- templated by Article 827." This passage encapsulates the philosophy underlying the Mal- tese system for the recognition of foreign judgments. Proceedings under Articles 826 and 827 are not a disguised appeal from the foreign decision. Their purpose is not to determine whether the foreign court correctly interpret- ed the evidence or applied its own law. Rather, the Maltese court's task is confined to examining whether one of the limited statu- tory grounds preventing recogni- tion has been established. In reaching this conclusion, the court referred to earlier Maltese authority, including Joseph Zam- mit McKeon nomine vs Laferla Insurance Agency et, reaffirming the long-established principle that recognition proceedings are exceptional in nature and that the grounds upon which recognition may be refused should not be ex- panded beyond those expressly provided by the legislature. The respondent's principal ar- gument centred on the existence of an arbitration clause contained in the underlying agreement. It contended that the foreign courts lacked jurisdiction because the parties had agreed that disputes arising under the contract were to be referred first to mediation and, failing settlement, to arbitration seated in Dubai. Consequently, it argued that Article 827(2), read together with Article 811(d) of the Code, entitled the Maltese court to refuse recognition on the basis that the foreign court had acted without jurisdiction. The court rejected this sub- mission. Judge Montebello ex- plained that the provision does not authorise the Maltese courts to undertake a fresh examination of whether the foreign court cor- rectly determined questions of jurisdiction according to its own legal system. Instead, the provi- sion must be understood within the limited purpose of recogni- tion proceedings. As the court ex- plained: "It is not the function of the Maltese court under Articles 826 and 827 to reopen and inves- tigate the merits of the dispute al- ready determined by the foreign judgment, nor to determine the laws and legal principles applica- ble in the foreign jurisdiction." Having examined the docu- mentary evidence, the court al- so observed that the respondent company had actively participat- ed in the appellate proceedings before both the First Civil Circuit of Appeal and the Commercial Cassation Circuit. In those cir- cumstances, it could not subse- quently rely upon the statutory protections intended for parties who had not appeared or had not been properly brought before the foreign court. The judgment therefore rein- forces an important principle of private international law. Recog- nition proceedings are designed to promote legal certainty in cross-border litigation by ensur- ing that disputes finally deter- mined abroad are not routinely re-litigated before the Maltese courts. Equally, the statutory safe- guards contained in Article 827 preserve the ability of the Mal- tese courts to refuse recognition where fundamental procedural guarantees have genuinely been infringed. The balance struck by the legislation is therefore one between the finality of foreign judgments and the protection of essential principles of justice. The decision also provides welcome clarification for practi- tioners involved in cross-border disputes. As international com- merce continues to expand, for- eign judgments will increasingly require recognition and enforce- ment in multiple jurisdictions. This judgment serves as a time- ly reminder that Maltese courts do not review the correctness of foreign decisions. Their role is considerably narrower—to deter- mine whether the judgment satis- fies the requirements established by Maltese law for recognition and enforcement. For that reason, the significance of the judgment extends beyond the parties themselves. It reaf- firms Malta's commitment to the orderly recognition of foreign ju- dicial decisions while preserving the limited but important safe- guards enacted by legislators. In doing so, the Civil Court has pro- vided valuable guidance on the operation of Articles 826 and 827 and reaffirmed that recognition proceedings are concerned not with reconsideration, but with recognition in accordance with the rule of law. File photo