A home's value must be updated by a published index

The Court of Appeal (Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Mr Justice Robert G. Mangion and Madam Justice Simone Grech) decided Z1 vs Z2 on 23 July 2026, on the wife's appeal from a Family Section separation judgment of 25 February 2026. It accepted two of her three grounds. The first court could update a three-year-old valuation of the matrimonial home, but had to do so by a published index rather than by adopting an older expert figure, which gives €397,070.

And the €73,004 equalisation the husband owes her comes off his half of the net value, not off the total before it is halved. It refused to make the father's access supervised.

The facts

The parties married in September 2012 and have a daughter. The first court found the husband solely at fault: his drinking and cocaine use, present before the marriage, grew worse once he took over a band club in 2014 and 2015, with insults, aggression at home, absences and no financial contribution; it dated the breakdown to February 2017, when he frightened the child.

Adultery was proved but was not the cause. The court gave the wife exclusive custody, ordered €400 a month maintenance, applied article 48 against the husband, and divided the community. The penthouse and garage, bought in 2013 for €212,500, had been valued at €420,000 by the court's technical expert in 2020 and at €330,000 by the additional experts in 2022; the first court took €420,000 to reflect the high value of property today.

It ordered the wife's €73,004 credit, for loan and insurance instalments she paid alone, an unauthorised card withdrawal and arrears of maintenance and expenses, to be deducted from the value before the halves were struck, and gave her a right of first refusal. Access to the father was left unsupervised, as it had been since July 2024 when his urine tests came back clean.

What the court held

On value, the court agreed that property in Malta rises year on year and that a first court may update a stale expert valuation.

But the first court gave no method, and its figure happened to match a 2020 expert valuation that had been superseded by the appointment of additional experts. “l-awment fil-valur kellu jiġi kkalkolat skont kriterji ta’ kalkoli maħruġa uffiċjalment u mhux in linea ma’ valutazzjoni magħmula snin qabel minn perit tekniku” [the increase in value had to be calculated by officially published criteria and not by reference to a valuation made years earlier by a technical expert].

Applying the Central Bank of Malta property price index, 160.4 in the third quarter of 2022 against 193.0 in the first quarter of 2026, the €330,000 becomes €397,070.

On the equalisation, the sum and the husband's liability for it were not appealed. Deducting it from the gross value and then halving meant the wife would “tispiċċa tirċievi nofs biss tal-ekwiparazzjoni” [end up receiving only half of the equalisation].

The correct order is: take the value, deduct the outstanding bank loan and the condominium charges pending since 2017, halve the balance, then deduct €73,004 from the husband's half, together with his share of every loan and insurance instalment the wife pays between the first judgment and the notarial transfer.

On access, the wife argued that the husband still drank and used drugs, that the first court had not decided her request for a hair-follicle test, and that he had been arrested in March 2026 over a fire in a block of flats.

The court recalled that it disturbs a first court's appreciation of the evidence only where it is unreasonable or contradicted by the record, citing Dr L.S. noe v. Strabuono Coffee International Limited (12 January 2023) and J.D. et vs A.D. et (29 March 2023). The judge who heard the case had found the husband's efforts real: monthly negative tests, a Caritas facilitator's evidence, a social worker's continued involvement.

Nothing about the alleged arrest was in evidence. Orders about children are never final, as the court said in M.R. v. S.J.P.H.P. (24 February 2025), so the wife can return if circumstances change. Costs of the appeal fall two-thirds on the husband and one-third on the wife; the rest of the first judgment stands.

Why it matters

Two practical rules for liquidation. First, if the expert valuation is old, ask the court to bring it forward by the Central Bank or NSO index and put the arithmetic in the submissions; a bare uplift will not survive appeal.

Second, check the order of operations in the decree: a credit owed by one spouse to the other is deducted from the debtor's share after the split, never from the pot before it. Getting that wrong halves the credit.

Where it sits

The case applies articles 40, 48, 51, 55, 56, 57 and 149 of the Civil Code and the rules on liquidation of the community of acquests.

On the limits of appellate review of fact the court cited P.E. v. J.A. (Court of Appeal, 10 January 1995), Dr L.S. noe v. Strabuono Coffee International Limited (Court of Appeal, 12 January 2023), J.D. et vs A.D. et (Court of Appeal, 29 March 2023), J.A. v. P.T. (Court of Appeal, 26 January 2018), Dr A.C. v. the Prime Minister et (Court of Appeal, 14 December 2018) and T & L Holdings Limited v. Francis Busuttil & Sons Limited et (Court of Appeal, Superior, 15 November 2023).

On the best interests of the child it cited M.D. v. A.C. (Court of Appeal, 31 October 2014), J.M. pro et noe v. L.M. (Court of Appeal, 14 December 2018) and M.R. v. S.J.P.H.P. (Court of Appeal, 24 February 2025).

Source

Court of Appeal (Civil, Superior), 71/2019/1, 23 July 2026: 71/2019/1.