Parents who prove intent can add a name to a birth act
A Gozo court ordered the Public Registry to add a second given name the parents had always meant their daughter to carry, but left them to pay the costs. It matters to any parent who registers a child's name wrongly.
Magistrate Brigitte Sultana, sitting in the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) in its superior jurisdiction, on 8 April 2026 ordered the correction of a child's birth certificate. The court found that the parents had always meant their daughter to carry two given names, while the act recorded only one. It upheld both requests but ordered the parents to pay the costs, because the error was not the Director's doing.
The facts
In A.R. vs Direttur Registru Pubbliku Ghal Ghawdex, the parents of a baby girl registered her birth. The act of birth recorded only her first name, in the column for the name by which the child is to be called. The parents said they had meant her to carry a second given name as well.
They noticed the mistake at once and contacted the Public Registry. The registry told them that only a court order could change the entry. They filed a sworn application under articles 253 and following of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta).
The Director of the Public Registry for Gozo raised four points. First, the hearing had to be published in the Government Gazette under article 254. Second, he did not know the facts. Third, the parents themselves had declared and signed the single name, and the hospital and identity agency notifications showed the same.
Last, he argued that a change of name under article 253 is an extraordinary measure. In his submission it serves a public purpose, to remove any confusion about a person's identity, and should not be granted because parents simply wish to change a name. He also asked not to bear the costs.
What the court held
The notice under article 254 appeared in the Government Gazette on 9 January 2026. At the hearing of 30 January 2026 the Director withdrew his first plea.
On the merits, the court held that the parents had to prove, to its satisfaction, that they had always wanted to give their daughter both names. The mother testified that this had always been the intention. She said that, by oversight, they registered the first name alone.
The court gave weight to the limited nature of the request. It said: "Il-Qorti Tosserva wkoll li t-talba tal-atturi hija biex jiżdied isem ma dak li diġa għandha binthom u għalhekk ma hix qed tintalab tibdil fl-isem kollu tal-minuri" (The court also observes that the request is to add a name to the one the daughter already has, so no change of the child's whole name is being sought).
On that evidence the court found that the parents had proved their intention. No one opposed the request, so the court held it justified at law. It declared that the act of birth contains an error and ordered the entry corrected to show both names.
The court agreed with the Director on costs. The parents' request did not arise from any act or omission of his, so he should bear none. The court ordered the parents to pay the costs of the case.
Article 256(1) requires the Director to make any ordered correction within 10 days from the day the judgment becomes res judicata, that is final. He acts on a true copy of the judgment from the registrar. Under article 256(2), a note referring to the judgment goes in the margin of the register. The court ordered the Director to be served with a copy of its decision.
Why it matters
Parents who register a name wrongly can put it right through a sworn application, but the burden of proving the original intention lies on them. Here the mother's testimony was enough, because the request only added a name and no one opposed it.
Lawyers should publish the Gazette notice under article 254 early, since the Director will plead it. They should also warn clients that they will usually pay the costs even when they win.
Where it sits
Articles 253 to 256 of the Civil Code let a person ask the court to correct, cancel or make an entry in an act of civil status. Article 254 requires public notice of the hearing, so that anyone with an interest can oppose. Article 256 sets out how the Director carries out the order.
The Director framed the request as a change of name, which he treated as an exceptional remedy. The court instead approached it as the correction of an entry that did not reflect what the parents intended. It also treated the adding of a name as a narrower request than replacing a name.
The costs order follows the principle that a defendant who caused nothing does not pay for a declaration sought in the plaintiff's interest. The judgment names no authority. The court decided on the articles and the evidence alone.
Source
Court of Magistrates (Gozo) (Superior Jurisdiction), 127/2025, 8 April 2026.