Malta is well-known for its unique social traits, particularly in terms of family dynamics. Unlike in larger Western nations, family bonds in Malta remain strong and enduring. Maltese families often live in proximity and maintain intimate relationships, even when not living together. This cultural aspect leads to a high number of claims in Maltese Courts for services provided, commonly referred to as ‘servigi’

Serviġi is a quasi contract under Maltese law in which there is a lawful and voluntary act which in turn creates an obligation towards a third party, or a reciprocal obligation between the parties themselves. 

In the case of ‘Delicata vs Saliba’[1] the court held that Serviġi is a quasi-contract. This type of contract refers to situations where members of a family look after other members of the family or even close friends. Furthermore, the court in the case of ‘Borġ vs Żammit’[2] applied the principle of Serviġi in the context of co-habitation.

The presumption of this type of quasi-contract is that services rendered are presumed to have been rendered with the intention of getting payment unless it is proven otherwise. In the case of ‘Catania vs Agius’[3] the court quoted as follows: “... Fil-Ġurisprudenza aktar riċenti pero’, anke fir-rigward ta’ ġenitur ġie applikat il-prinċipju li kwalunkwe Serviġi jiġi ritenuti prestati bi Speranza ta’ kumpens, jekk ma jikkonkorrux ċirkostanzi tali li jiġġustifikaw konkludelment il-gratuita’, sija pure minħabba relazzjonijiet ta’ parentela.”

In addition in the case of ‘Ġili vs Grixti’[4] the court also stated that “... fin-nuqqas ta’ ċirkostanzi li juru l-kuntrarju kull serviġi għandu jiġi ritenut prestat bi speranza ta’ kumpens.”

The prescriptive period in respect of serviġi is that of 5 years. The principle is that the 5 year period starts running not from the end of the services but from the day the actual service is given. This period however can nevertheless be interrupted. If there is admission of liability, an interruption subsists. Interruption may also take place if there exists a declaration in a will of the deceased.

It is in the court’s discretion to establish the parameters and criteria to serve as a basis for the calculation of the compensation due. Over the years, the courts have developed a criterion which is to be taken into account when liquidating such amount due by way of compensation for services rendered, namely:-

The nature and Length of the services rendered

The courts will consider how long a person has been giving out their services and what these services entailed.

The benefits or advantages that the person rendering the services might have enjoyed

This is an important element. There exist certain situations where a person is giving their services but at the same time is being compensated in some way or another.

The degree of relationship or the nature of the bond between the parties

Generally speaking, the closer the relationship, the lesser the amount of compensation that will be given. The basis of this quasi contract is equity and thus it is only fair that one should be entitled to a higher computation of compensation if that person was taking care of a person not related by blood.

The financial needs of the parties, particularly of the beneficiary

Once again, since the basis of this quasi-contract is equity, the courts have asserted that it is only fair that the amount of compensation paid should be relative to the means of the beneficiary.

Therefore, the amount of compensation is not solely dependant on the nature and length of the services rendered. Given that this is not a contractual relationship and given further that it is based on a special relationship, the courts will try to establish a balance.

In the case of ‘Brincat vs Brincat’[5] the Plaintiff had been taking care of her person for well over 38 years. During the first 13 years, the court granted her compensation of Eur 70 per week. During the next 25 years the court granted her compensation of Eur 140 per week. In addition, the plaintiff had also given her parents a sum of money (LM 9,000) and the court took this into consideration as well as the interests that would have devolved on this sum over the years. The court ended up awarding the plaintiff the global sum of Eur 271,248 as compensation.

For more information or assistance please contact Dr Robert Tufigno and Dr Delilah Vella.  

[1]  Court of Appeal, (22/05/1989)

[2] First Hall, Civil Court (27/06/2008)

[3]  First Hall, Civil Court, (11/12/2003)

[4] First Hall, Civil Court (03/10/1991)

[5] First Hall, Civil Court, (17/03/2010)