The issue of how much specialisation is required of a modern judiciary is debated in many legal systems, some of which have a long tradition of generalist judges. The increasing complexity of contemporary society and the emergence of new legal fields, dominated by technical concepts, can be seen as the perfect rationale for the establishment of specialised courts.

 It is easy to think that a new array of complex cases, raising sophisticated issues of fact and law, deserves to be adjudicated by judges who are highly skilled in the subject matters at stake. New specialised courts could also contribute to the solution of the problem affecting various legal systems, that is, the huge caseloads burdening ordinary courts.

Neighbouring Italy is a shining example where recent reforms and others announced seem to indicate a new trend in favour of the establishment of more specialised divisions within ordinary courts.

As should be, our court setup has been in a constant state of evolution for the last thirty years, moving with the times and satisfying changing demands.

During the last few years, the emphasis has been laid on going for the specialisation of courts.

In 2003, for example, the establishment of the Family Court aimed to address issues related to separations and to mitigate the hardships caused by lengthy court proceedings in these matters. Previously, many of the issues dealt with by that court used to be tackled by the Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction and the general civil courts, creating a never-ending list of pending and prolonged judicial proceedings.

Again, in 2015, a radical reform was made with regard to the manner in which drug cases were assigned and decided by our courts. Depending on specific statutory conditions being met, today, many drug cases that before used to stultify and unnecessarily hamper the magistrates' court in conducting proceedings with the utmost expediency and efficiency are being heard and disposed of by the Drug Offenders Rehabilitation Board, thus crowning the legislative intent to alleviate the burden on the Criminal Court, which is dealing with a substantial caseload and backlog.

As of January of this year, we now have a specialised, full-time cohort of Inquiring Magistrates focused on criminal procedure, following a reform that established them as a dedicated section of the judiciary, responsible for investigating cases by gathering and preserving evidence, determining if an offence has been committed, and determining whether the police or the Attorney General should proceed with further action.

Previously, this type of work used to be conducted by magistrates who, at the same time, had to preside over the magistrates' court as a court of criminal judicature or as a court of enquiry. Moreover, even the latter procedure is currently being targeted for reform by endeavouring to find a way to do away with it, since its original scope is more and more being felt to be useless and time-wasting today.

The latest development is that Malta is in the process of establishing a separate, dedicated Commercial Court as a distinct legal entity from the Civil Court, following legislation proposed in May 2025 to re-establish the institution that was dissolved in 1995. This reform aims to increase the efficiency and specialisation of commercial dispute resolution, providing a more tailored and accessible judicial service for businesses and improving Malta's attractiveness for international investment.

Over and above all that, one cannot miss out on mentioning other small, but far-reaching, reforms that have set up special tribunals and boards dealing with particular and exclusive legal issues.

Our specialised courts include the Juvenile Court for minors and the Small Claims Tribunal for small disputes, the Rent Regulation Board for rent and eviction issues, the Partition of Inheritances Tribunal for anything concerned with inheritance disputes, the Administrative Review Tribunal for reviewing administrative acts, and the Competition and Consumer Appeals Tribunal for appeals related to competition and consumer affairs.

In light of all these positive developments, what should be the next move?

As it is, constitutional law matters are dealt with by judges presiding over the First Hall of the Civil Court and by the Constitutional Court, composed of three judges who ordinarily also deal with general civil law court cases.

Needless to say, constitutional law is by far the most important branch of the law and judiciary and should be in the exclusive domain of a full-time constitutional court.

We remain in dire need of a separate constitutional court as a specialised, independent judicial body with unique jurisdiction over constitutional matters, such as the interpretation of the constitution, judicial review of laws, and disputes concerning the protection of human rights.

Unlike courts of general jurisdiction that handle civil and criminal cases, such a constitutional court would focus exclusively on constitutional issues, adjudicating abstract questions and ensuring that laws and actions comply with the constitution. The court can be characterised by the independence and autonomy of its judges, with their powers and composition determined directly by the constitution itself.

Specialised courts are important because they enhance the quality and consistency of justice in complex areas of law, fostering judicial expertise, streamlining proceedings, and promoting greater uniformity in case law. They can also offer more effective, tailored responses for specific populations or complex social issues.

This specialisation leads to greater efficiency, faster decisions, reduced litigation, and increased public trust in the legal system.