In a recent judgment delivered on the 6 June 2025, the First Hall Civil Court (the "FHCC"), in the case Raymond Azzopardi (the "Claimant") vs Adrian Borg (the "Respondent") presided by Madame Justice Audrey Demicoli, considered the legal obligations of contractors concerning the standard of skill and craftsmanship required under a contract of works.

The Claimant requested the FHCC to (i) declare and decide that the Respondent shall pay the Claimant and is consequently a debtor of the Claimant in connection with any sum due for works carried out at the Respondent's property, (ii) liquidate the sum which shall be due to the Claimant in the amount of €37,286.74 with the appointment of experts engaged by this Honourable Court should their assistance be necessary, (iii) order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the amount liquidated with costs including those of the judicial letter and precautionary garnishee order filed against the Respondent.

The Background

The dispute emerged following construction works carried out by the Claimant at a site in Luqa owned by the Respondent. The works included those that were covered by the necessary Planning Authority permits, specifically at ground floor level, while additional works needed at first floor level were arranged through verbal agreements and lacked the necessary permits. Despite various payments being made throughout the relationship, the Respondent withheld a significant outstanding sum.

The Respondent contended that the Claimant proceeded with the works independently, disregarding instructions from the appointed architect Mark Frendo, and alleged that the quality of workmanship was substandard and posed considerable risks. These concerns ultimately led to an intervention by the Building and Construction Authority ("BCA") which ordered termination of works in May 2023.

The Respondent, in his Sworn Reply, held that:

(1)                        The Claimant's claims are unfounded both in fact and in law;

(2)                        The Claimant solely decided to carry out works not under the instructions of the Architect Mark Frendo who was engaged to monitor such works;

(3)                        The Respondent noticed that the works being carried out by the Claimant were not in accordance with the level of skill and craftsmanship expected, and such works were going to cause a serious risk;

(4)                        The works had to be stopped by the BCA given that they were going to cause serious damage and harm to the building in question; and

(5)                        The Claimant's claims are all false and are nowhere close to the truth.

Key issues before the Court

The FHCC proceeded to address the following key issues:

(A)                      Technical expert and quantity surveyor's report

At the Claimant's request, the FHCC appointed Architect Michael Lanfranco and Quantity Surveyor Kevin Borg to assess the works. Following a site visit, the report concluded as follows:

(a) Certain works lacked the requisite permits - a fact acknowledged by both parties.

(b)Some elements of the work fell short of the expected standard of skill and craftsmanship;

(c) Due to the above, remedial works valued at €11,545 were necessary;

(d)                        The overall value of the completed works stood at €39,145; and

(e) After accounting for necessary deductions, the experts recommended a payment of €27,600 to the Claimant.

Nonetheless, the Court made reference to Article 618 of Chapter 12 which provides that the court is in no way bound to accept those conclusions made in a technical expert's report.

(B)                      Works which were allegedly not carried out in accordance with the level of skill and craftsmanship

The Court examined the Claimant's admissions, where he conceded that parts of the works were executed without oversight from the architect and absences of the necessary permits for the works to be carried out at ground floor level. As to other works, the Claimant held that the architect was not involved at this stage. The Court also asked whether he was given proper plans, and the Claimant stated that he was only given a piece of paper by the Respondent. In fact, Architect Mark Frendo agreed with this and held that there were works which were not carried out under his supervision and which were not covered by the required permits. It also transpired that the Claimant used to follow instructions given by the Respondent who is an Engineer.

While the Claimant did not contest the fact that certain works were not carried out with the required level of craftsmanship, he nonetheless tried exonerating himself from responsibility claiming that the works were carried out on the instructions of the Respondent. However, the FHCC firmly rejected this defence, affirming that contractors remain fully responsible for ensuring the quality and legality of their work, regardless of client instructions that contravene professional standards or legal requirements.  A contractor is bound to carry out works with a certain level of skill and craftsmanship.

The Court further emphasised that the contractor bears the responsibility to perform works to a professional standard, and that delegation of responsibility to the client is not a valid excuse for subpar or unlawful execution of works.

The FHCC additionally held that reports made with the BCA, irrespective of who actually made these reports (the Claimant or Architect Mark Frendo), further substantiate that the works carried out were not of the level of trade and craftsmanship expected.

(C)                       Determination of Amount Payable

First and foremost, the Court held that it certainly cannot grant payment for works which were not executed to the requisite standard once it resulted that:

(a) From a technical point of view, the works were contested both by the technical expert and by the Claimant himself as works were not carried out according to the level of trade and craftsmanship expected; and

 More so, works were carried out in breach of development laws and obligations imposed by the law on the contractor.

Naturally, given that it was the Respondent himself who engaged and authorised the Claimant to perform certain works, all remedial works that are necessary are to be carried out by the Respondent at his own expense.

The FHCC took into consideration the following:

(a) Payment due for works carried out on the first floor;

(b)Material;

(c) Works which were not taken into consideration by the technical expert; and

(d)                        Payments already made.

After taking the above into account, the FHCC determined that that the Respondent owed the Claimant the sum of €4,266 together with interest from the date of judgment to the date of effective payment.

Decision

In conclusion and for the above-mentioned reasons, the FHCC ruled in favour of the Claimant, declaring Adrian Borg liable to pay Raymond Azzopardi the sum of €4,266 for construction works carried out at BVA Engineering, Plot 143, Industrial Estate Luqa, and dismissed all the Respondent's pleas in their entirety.

Disclaimer: Ganado Advocates is responsible for contributing to this law report but was not in any way involved as legal advisor for the parties in the judgement being covered in this law report.

Krista Refalo is an Advocate at Ganado Advocates.