Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1547581
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 15 NOVEMBER 2026 LAW Additional drainage connections do not automatically aggravate a servitude IAN BARBARA Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates ADDING a bathroom and kitch- enette to an apartment does not, in itself, constitute an unlawful increase in the burden of an ex- isting drainage servitude. This was the ruling delivered by the Civil Court in dismiss- ing the drainage-related claims against the upstairs owners. The court also held that dis- covering damage to a drainage pipe after renovation works had been completed did not, in it- self, establish that the works had caused the damage. Evidence suggesting that the works might have caused or aggravated the damage, established only a pos- sibility and did not discharge the plaintiffs' burden of proving causation on a balance of prob- abilities. Judge Henri Mizzi, presiding over the First Hall of the Civil Court, delivered judgment on 29 October 2026 in Giovanni Dalli et al. vs Emanuel Baldac- chino et al. The court dismissed the claims seeking the removal of the additional drainage con- nections and compensation for damage allegedly caused by the renovation works. The dispute concerned two ground-floor properties owned by the Dalli family in Marsaska- la and a second-floor apartment belonging to Baldacchino. An existing drainage servitude al- lowed the drainage pipes serving the upstairs properties to pass through the downstairs proper- ty. The central questions were whether the defendant's reno- vations had unlawfully aggra- vated the existing servitude and whether the works had caused the damage subsequently dis- covered beneath the plaintiffs' courtyard. In 2020, the defendants reno- vated their apartment, adding a bathroom and kitchenette with the necessary drainage connec- tions. The plaintiffs alleged that the apartment had been divided into two separate residences and that the additional pipes had in- creased the burden on the exist- ing drainage system. The defendants denied that any subdivision had taken place. They maintained that the prop- erty remained a single apart- ment, used for residential pur- poses through room-sharing arrangements, and that the addi- tional facilities did not overload the drainage system. In July 2021, sewage seepage was reported in an adjoining garage. A test conducted by the Sanitation Department, in- volving the introduction of dye through the defendants' apart- ment, resulted in the dye subse- quently appearing in the garage. A contractor then discovered a crack in an old drainage pipe beneath the courtyard, in the branch serving the upstairs apartments, and repaired it at the plaintiffs' expense. The plaintiffs attributed the damage to the renovation works and sought compensation, in- cluding associated travel ex- penses. The defendants disputed causation, pointing to the pipe's age, its condition and possible blockages. They also empha- sised that the works had been completed approximately one year before the problem was identified. The court first examined the scope of the existing drainage rights. The deeds confirmed that the defendants' apartment already benefited from the ser- vitude. The issue was therefore whether the alterations exceed- ed the rights granted or imposed an additional burden on the property subject to the servi- tude. Applying Article 475 and the related provisions of the Civil Code, while also considering rel- evant jurisprudence, the court explained that additional drain- age connections were not auto- matically unlawful. Their effect had to be assessed in light of the permitted use, the capacity of the existing system and whether they caused any actual prejudice to the property bearing the ser- vitude. The evidence did not establish that the apartment had been converted into two separate dwellings or that the addition- al connections served another property or floor. Although the plaintiffs' architect identified the new connections, he did not demonstrate that they compro- mised the capacity of the exist- ing drainage system. Conversely, the defendants' architect con- cluded that the system could accommodate the additional facilities, and this technical con- clusion was not contradicted by other expert evidence. The court consequently reject- ed the allegation that the drain- age servitude had been unlaw- fully aggravated. On the question of causation, the dye test established that the leaking water originated from the building's drainage system. However, it did not establish that the defendants had caused the defect. Although the contractor sug- gested that movement during the renovation works could have damaged the pipe, he had not witnessed the works and could not confirm that this was what had occurred. Furthermore, there was no evidence establish- ing the condition of the pipe be- fore the renovation. Ultimately, the court considered the plain- tiffs' explanation less probable than the alternative causes, par- ticularly that the pipe's age and condition had led to the defect. The plaintiffs therefore failed to establish liability on a bal- ance of probabilities. The court left undecided whether there might be a separate obligation to contribute towards the repair costs, since the claim before it concerned damages allegedly caused by the defendants' con- duct rather than the sharing of maintenance expenses. The defendants succeeded in defending the drainage-related claims, although the court sepa- rately ordered the removal of six iron supports that had been left across the courtyard. This judgment illustrates that additional drainage connections do not automatically consti- tute an unlawful aggravation of an existing servitude, just as a leak discovered after renovation works does not, by itself, estab- lish liability for the resulting damage. Such claims must be support- ed by evidence demonstrating both the actual impact of the works on the servitude and a sufficiently established causal link between the works and the alleged damage. Such claims must be supported by evidence demonstrating both the actual impact of the works on the servitude and a sufficiently established causal link between the works and the alleged damage