Wreck rent is owed by the owner, not a shareholder

The First Hall of the Civil Court, presided over by Madam Justice Doreen Clarke, decided Awtorita Ghat-Trasport F'Malta vs P.M. on 17 March 2026. The Authority for Transport in Malta had issued an executive judicial letter for €122,749 in wreck rent and removal costs. The court rejected every plea of prescription but held that the claim was unfounded against the applicant, because he did not own the vessel when the debt arose.

The facts

A company whose shareholders were P.M. and his father bought a vessel in 2009. In March 2015 the company sold it to P.M., who had it deleted from the Maltese register. He testified that he sold it that September to a company registered in Cyprus, in which he and his father hold shares.

The vessel stayed moored at the same place in port from 2015 to 2020. The authority corresponded with the father from 2018, and he never mentioned a sale. In 2020 the authority had the vessel removed and scrapped, and on 11 May 2021 it issued a judicial letter under article 466 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta) for €93,499 in wreck rent and €29,250 in removal costs.

What the court held

The court first held that the authority could use article 466. The authority is a body set up by the Authority for Transport in Malta Act (Chapter 499 of the Laws of Malta). Regulation 32(1) of the Port Regulations (S.L. 499.01) lets it charge a daily rent, per gross registered ton, on any hulk or wreck lying in a port.

That charge takes the form of rent, which article 466 lists among the debts it covers. The removal costs were a service the authority performed in place of an owner who failed to act. The court relied on the Court of Appeal's reading in Il-Kummissarju tal-Artijiet vs LHP Limited (3 February 2012) that article 466 reaches money due whatever its nature.

On prescription, the court held that a debtor may raise more than one plea, provided each names the article relied on. Article 2153 of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta), the two-year term for damages not caused by a criminal offence, did not apply. Reimbursing costs the authority incurred in the owner's place is not a claim for extra-contractual damages.

Article 2156(c), on rent of buildings or land, did not apply either. Prescription is read restrictively, so buildings and land keep their ordinary meaning. Article 2156(g), on government actions for judicial fees, duties or taxes, also failed. The daily charge is not a tax but a sum imposed under the law for occupying space with an object that may be dangerous.

The court accepted that the five-year term in article 2156(f) applied, describing the charge in these words: "Din hi relazzjoni ta' natura amministrattiva iktar milli ta' natura kummerċjali" (This is a relationship of an administrative rather than a commercial nature). The rent ran from 2018 to 2020 and the letter was filed in May 2021, so nothing was time-barred. The applicant had also taken the oath that article 2160 requires.

The authority proved both sums with an invoice, proof of payment and a detailed statement, and the applicant brought no evidence against them. The claim failed on ownership. From 2018 to 2020 the vessel belonged to the Cypriot company, and no evidence showed that P.M. held any office in it or represented it at law. Being a shareholder did not make him personally liable.

The court added that the authority could have checked before acting: "kull ma kien meħtieġ kien verifika mar-Registru Malti tal-bastimenti" (all that was needed was a check with the Maltese register of ships). It declared under article 466(2) that the authority has no executive title against P.M. and ordered the authority to pay the costs.

Why it matters

A public body that uses article 466 must direct the letter at the person liable for the period the debt covers, and its own registers are the first check. A debtor who contests such a letter should plead each prescription with its article, and should test who owed the debt as well as whether it is time-barred. Here the ownership point decided the case after every prescription plea failed.

Where it sits

Article 466 is the special procedure through which government departments and statutory bodies turn a sworn statement of debt into an executive title, unless the debtor objects by application within 20 days of notification. Through the Court of Appeal judgment of 3 February 2012, the court traced its broad reading to a Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) judgment of 20 October 2003.

The prescription holdings follow the rule students learn: prescription is an exception, it is read restrictively, and a plea must name its term. For more than one plea in the same case, the court cited the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) of 24 October 2025. On article 2153 it cited the Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction) of 2 March 1953, which confined the two-year term to extra-contractual damages.

On article 2156(f), the court cited the Court of Magistrates (25 November 2015) and the First Hall of the Civil Court (19 October 1954). Both read "any other credit" eiusdem generis, that is, limited to money debts of the same kind as those the article lists. On when wreck rent falls due, it cited the First Hall of the Civil Court (2 June 2006).

Source

First Hall of the Civil Court, 483/2021, 17 March 2026: 483/2021