Deadline ending on a Saturday runs to the next working day
The Court of Appeal held that an unfair dismissal claim filed with the Industrial Tribunal on a Monday was in time, because the four-month limit ran out on the Saturday before. It sent the case back to the tribunal for a hearing.
On 28 January 2026 Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff, sitting in the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), held that a claim filed before the Industrial Tribunal on Monday 14 October 2024 was in time. The four-month limit in article 75(3) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Chapter 452 of the Laws of Malta) ended on a Saturday, so it ran to the next working day. The court set aside the tribunal's finding that the claim was time-barred and sent the case back.
The facts
In S.E. vs Art Linea Limited, the employee worked for the company on a fixed-term contract from 3 February 2022 to 2 February 2025. After a disagreement in June 2024 about the day he was due back at work, his employment ended. He argued that a director of the company ended it by a WhatsApp message.
He asked the tribunal to find the termination unjustified and sought €3,750 in compensation and pay for unused vacation leave. The company pleaded that the claim was time-barred, because the termination took effect on 12 June 2024 and the claim was filed on 14 October 2024. It also argued that it had followed its disciplinary process.
On 30 June 2025 the tribunal decided the time-bar plea first. It found that the termination was registered with Jobsplus on 12 June 2024 and held that the claim was out of time and could not be heard.
What the court held
The employee appealed on two grounds. First, he argued that the date of termination was uncertain, relying on the cross-examination of one witness. The court read the transcript and found that the witness kept the leave records and had no part in the termination.
The court held that it would change a tribunal's assessment of the evidence only for serious reasons causing serious prejudice, and there were none. The date of 12 June 2024 was not only the date of registration. It was also the day the company told him in its messages that it was preparing the papers “for termination of work”, so he knew with certainty that his job was ending.
Second, he argued that the four-month period ended on Saturday 12 October 2024 and so ran to the Monday. The court first asked whether the rules he relied on applied before the tribunal.
Article 75(3) sets the four-month limit. Article 77 gives the tribunal the powers that the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta) gives the First Hall of the Civil Court. The court held that article 108 of that Code therefore applies in tribunal proceedings.
Read with article 109, article 108 means that a legal or judicial time limit whose last day falls on a Saturday or a public holiday expires on the next day that is not one. The court adopted the reasoning of the First Hall: “meta l-aħħar ġurnata tinzerta li mhix ġurnata tax-xogħol allura t-terminu jagħlaq fl-ewwel ġurnata tax-xogħol li jkun imiss u fil-ħin li jagħlaq ir-Reġistru” (when the last day is not a working day, the time limit closes on the next working day, at the hour the registry closes).
The tribunal's registry did not work on Saturday 12 October 2024, so the limit expired on Monday 14 October. The claim was filed that day and was in time.
The court allowed the appeal in part. It kept the tribunal's finding that 12 June 2024 was the relevant date and set aside the rest of the preliminary decision. It rejected the company's time-bar plea, sent the case back to the tribunal to continue, and ordered the company to pay the costs of the appeal and of the preliminary decision.
Why it matters
A worker counting the four months under article 75(3) can file on the next working day when the last day falls on a Saturday or public holiday. The clock starts on the day the employee learns with certainty that the job is ending, which here matched the Jobsplus registration. A challenge to that date on appeal needs more than a witness who had no part in the termination.
Where it sits
Article 75(3) sets a four-month limit for claims before the Industrial Tribunal, and the court described it as perentorju, a peremptory time limit. The First Hall judgment it cited explains that legal time limits which are not peremptory can be extended under article 106 of the Code, and that articles 108 and 109 must be read together.
The employee also relied on article 2139(2) of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta), which he argued carries the same rule. The court decided the point on articles 108 and 109 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, read with article 77 of the Act. The authority it named is the First Hall of the Civil Court (2 April 2004).
Source
Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), 78/2025, 28 January 2026.