Unfair dismissal award may count a worker's lost plans

The Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) on 11 March 2026 dismissed an employer's appeal against an Industrial Tribunal award of €76,185.80 for unfair dismissal. Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff held that the tribunal gave reasons for the sum and stayed within article 81(2)(a) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Chapter 452 of the Laws of Malta). The court also held that an appeal in these cases lies only on a point of law, so it would not weigh the facts again.

The facts

J.D., the employee, captained a team of colleagues from Evolution Malta Limited in a charity football tournament. The team came second and won €1,800. The head of human resources later told him by email that the company would not pass the prize money on to the team.

He shared the news with his teammates. Another employee forwarded the email outside the group, and it ended up on social media. The company dismissed J.D. summarily because it considered him responsible for spreading a company email.

On 5 June 2025 the Industrial Tribunal found the dismissal unjust. It noted that no disciplinary process had taken place and that his conduct at work had been exemplary. It set compensation at €76,185.80, citing his lost earnings, six months without work, his move back to his home country and the collapse of his plans to buy a flat.

What the court held

The company did not appeal the finding that the dismissal was unjust. It argued that the award did not fit the statutory limits, that the tribunal relied on matters no one had proved and that the sum, more than a year's salary, was excessive when set against the maximum awards in England, Germany, Spain and France.

J.D. pleaded that the appeal was null because it raised no point of law. The court dealt with that plea first. It held that article 82(3) of Chapter 452 is clear: an “appell f’każi ta’ tkeċċija mingħajr kawża ġusta, jista’ jsir biss minn ‘punt ta’ liġi’” (appeal in cases of dismissal without just cause may be made only on a point of law).

The court did not declare the appeal null. It considered only the parts of the grievance that raised questions of law and left aside those that turned on the facts.

On the law, the court held that Maltese law has no gap to fill. Article 81(2)(a) itself lists what the tribunal must consider: the real damage and other losses the worker suffered, and other circumstances, including age and skills, that affect the worker's chances of finding work. There was no need to borrow English rules or foreign caps.

The court then found the tribunal's decision well reasoned. The tribunal explained each factor it weighed, and the company had been able to build a detailed appeal on those same factors. The move abroad, the sale of his car and the loss of his plans in Malta fell within the “other circumstances” that the article names.

The figures came from a sworn schedule of loss that the company never contested, so the court saw no doubt about its value as evidence. It stressed the limit of its own role: “Il-Qorti hawnhekk tfakkar li l-eżami tagħha huwa biss wieħed ta’ dritt u mhux ta’ fatti” (The court recalls that its review is one of law only and not of facts).

The court added that the comparison with other countries was tied to the merits, which it could not revisit. It also noted that the English maximum the company put forward was higher than the tribunal's award. The company was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Why it matters

An employer who appeals an unfair dismissal award must frame a real point of law, not a complaint that the sum is too high. A worker who files a sworn, detailed schedule of loss makes the award hard to attack, and an employer who leaves that schedule uncontested is unlikely to recover ground on appeal.

Foreign compensation caps carry little weight while article 81(2)(a) governs the award.

Where it sits

Under Chapter 452, a worker dismissed without a just cause may be reinstated or compensated. Where the tribunal awards compensation, article 81(2)(a) gives it a wide discretion, and article 82(3) narrows any appeal to points of law. The line between a legal error in applying the article and a disagreement over the facts decides whether an appeal on quantum can succeed.

The court relied on its own earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal (26 February 2025). There it held that the legislator left the tribunal a wide discretion and listed age and skills so that the tribunal could consider how employable the worker remained. The employee pointed out that in that case the award was reduced only because it rested on no factual reasons.

The parties also cited judgments of the Court of Appeal of 12 June 2020, 29 May 2024 and 6 June 2025. The employee relied on the 29 May 2024 judgment for the view that the amount of compensation is not a question of law.

Source

Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), J.D. vs Evolution Malta Limited, 63/2025, 11 March 2026.