Lifelong use of a first name can correct a birth act
The First Hall of the Civil Court ordered a birth act corrected to the full names a woman had always used, on documents alone, but only for acts in the Director's power. It matters to anyone whose official records carry a name they never used.
Madam Justice Joanne Vella Cuschieri, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court, on 6 May 2026 ordered the Director of the Public Registry to correct a woman's birth act. The court found that her documents showed she had always used a set of names different from the first name recorded at her birth. It upheld her requests as corrected during the case, but limited the order to acts within the Director's power.
The facts
In W.A. vs Direttur Tar-Registru Pubbliku, the applicant was born in Malta. Her birth act recorded three given names and, in the column for the name by which she is to be called, a single first name.
She argued that she had never used that first name. Family, friends and the institutions she dealt with, including banks and government bodies, had always known her by another. She said the inconsistency caused her practical and procedural difficulties.
She filed a sworn application under article 253(2) and (3) of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta). She asked the court to declare the name by which she is known and to order the birth act corrected. She also asked that the change be reflected in every act of civil status that concerns her.
What the court held
The Director raised several pleas. He asked the court to confirm that the hearing had been published in the Government Gazette under article 254. He said the birth act recorded what her mother declared at registration, so he had made no error.
He also pointed out that her passports issued abroad showed three given names, not the single name she had asked for. If the court granted the request as filed, a Maltese passport would show a different name from her other passport. He added that he could only change acts within his legal power, and that each act to be changed had to be identified by number and year.
The court found that the notice had been duly published, which disposed of the first plea. At the hearing, the applicant corrected her first and second requests to meet the point about her full names. The court allowed the corrections, and the Director withdrew that plea.
On the merits, the court examined the documents filed with the sworn application. It found that they showed the applicant uses, and has always used, her full names, and not the recorded first name alone. The court said: "Għaldaqstant minn din id-dokumentazzjoni jirriżulta illi t-talbiet tagħha huma ġustifikati u ser tgħaddi sabiex tilqa’ l-istess" (It therefore results from this documentation that her requests are justified, and the court will uphold them).
The court rejected the Director's remaining pleas so far as they conflicted with its decision. It upheld the first and second requests as corrected. It upheld the third request only for the acts in the Director's power, and ordered him served with a copy of the judgment under article 256.
The court ordered the applicant to pay the costs.
Why it matters
A long and consistent record of use can carry a correction of a birth act, even where the original entry matched what a parent declared. Here the documents were enough; the court needed no witnesses.
Lawyers should make the requested name match the name on the client's other official documents, in full, or the Director will object. They should list each act of civil status to be changed by number and year. Clients should expect to pay the costs.
Where it sits
Articles 253 to 256 of the Civil Code govern the correction, cancellation and registration of acts of civil status. Article 253(3) allows a correction to be carried into related acts. Article 254 requires public notice so that anyone with an interest can oppose, and article 256 tells the Director how to carry out the order.
Students meet these articles in the distinction between correcting an entry and changing a name. The Director's plea that he had made no error reflects that distinction. The judgment does not decide whether an error at registration must be shown; it rested on proof of consistent use.
The third request shows the limit of the remedy. The Director acts only on the registers he keeps, so an order under article 256 does not reach documents held by other authorities.
The judgment names no authority. The court decided on the articles and the documents alone.
Source
First Hall of the Civil Court, 1116/2025, 6 May 2026.