Fault still decides costs after a church annulment

Madam Justice Jacqueline Padovani Grima, sitting in the Civil Court (Family Section), on 20 April 2026 decided a separation case in which a church tribunal had already annulled the marriage. The court declined to rule further on the separation itself but still examined who was at fault, because fault bears on costs. It then divided the couple's property by what each had paid, and ordered the wife to pay three-quarters of the costs.

The facts

In GS vs GB, the wife filed for personal separation in January 2020, alleging excesses, threats and grave insults, and incompatibility of character. The husband denied fault, blamed her for the breakdown and filed a counterclaim.

While the case was pending, the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Malta annulled the marriage on 28 October 2022. By a decree of 13 March 2023, the Court of Appeal ordered that decision registered in the Public Registry.

The couple co-owned a garage bought before the marriage, a house meant as the matrimonial home and a vintage car. There were bank loans on the house and the car.

What the court held

In view of the annulment, the court abstained from ruling on the separation requests and on most of the counterclaim. It still examined fault, because article 223 of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta) makes the losing party pay costs, unless the court orders otherwise.

The court first addressed the affidavits. It held that "l-affidavit jintuza’ biex titressaq ix-xhieda tal-parti jew ta’ xhud limitatament ghal dak li l-persuna tkun esperjenzat u cjoe rat jew semghet" (an affidavit brings the evidence of a party or witness, limited to what that person experienced, that is, saw or heard). It gave no weight to the parts that were argument.

The court also held that correspondence sent without prejudice should not be filed at any stage, especially without its authorisation. It ordered those documents removed from the record.

The court found that no version convinced it in full, and that each witness leaned towards the party who called them. On the evidence, it found that the marriage broke down irretrievably because of the wife's adultery. It also found that the husband always chose to please his mother rather than seek a solution with his wife.

The husband argued that the wife should lose all the assets she had acquired through her own work. The court rejected that. It held that a finding of fault carries the costs and the effects of article 48 of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta), but not the loss of everything a spouse earned.

On the property, the court found that all payments towards the garage came before the marriage from paraphernal funds, that is, money belonging to each spouse alone. The husband had paid 84.5% and the wife 15.5%. The court ordered the garage put on the open market for at least three months, with the husband free to keep it by paying her 15.5% of the best price.

On the house, the husband had paid €500 a month towards the loan and the wife the rest, until the proceedings began. The court ordered him to pay her €2,826.80 to equalise those payments. It ordered her to reimburse him €4,940, half the insurance premiums he had paid alone. The house is to be sold, the loan paid off, and the balance shared equally.

The court declared the vintage car the wife's paraphernal property and assigned it to her. It awarded the husband €5,900 for his outlay on it, against €22,000 claimed, because his receipts did not support the higher figure.

The court ordered that neither party pay maintenance to the other. It split the costs, three-quarters to the wife and one quarter to the husband.

Why it matters

A church annulment does not end the civil case. The Family Section still divides the property and still weighs fault, because fault drives the costs.

Lawyers should keep affidavits to facts the witness knows personally and file receipts for every sum claimed. They should never file without-prejudice correspondence.

Where it sits

Article 48 of the Civil Code lists what the spouse at fault loses on separation, including the right to maintenance and a share of certain acquests. The court read it narrowly: fault does not strip a spouse of what they earned by their own work. Where property was bought before marriage, the court split it by what each party paid.

On costs, the court relied on article 223 of Chapter 12 and on the Court of Appeal (16 September 2004). That judgment explains when a court may depart from the rule that the loser pays.

Source

Civil Court (Family Section), 24/2020, 20 April 2026.