On the 7 July 2026, the First Hall Civil Court (the Court) presided over by Mr Justice Henri Mizzi delivered judgment in the names Joseph Caruana, Carmel Sciortino and Alexander Sciortino (the "Plaintiffs") vs Kazin San Guzepp & Banda De Rohan A.D 1860 (the Respondent Club). Through its judgment the Court confirmed the Plaintiff's version of events and ordered the Respondent Club to pay the global sum of €22,865 after causing considerable damage to the Plaintiff's land in Zebbug, Malta.
Background
The Plaintiffs cultivate and work agricultural land situated in the area known as Wicc ir-Rahal, within the limits of Zebbug. They say that during the Feast of St Joseph in both 2021 and 2022, fireworks fired by the band club, or people working for it, set their fields alight, damaging trees, vines and crops, and they went to court seeking compensation. The Club fought the case on almost every front. As a first line of defence, it argued it couldn't be sued in its own name, that the 2021 claim had expired with time, that the farmers hadn't properly proven their title to the land, and that the case had been filed too late. On the substance, it denied acting carelessly, denied the fireworks caused the fires at all, and argued that even if they did, the farmers had contributed to their own losses.
The Two Fires
In 2021, the farmers say sparks or debris from the display landed on their fields, wrecking vines and killing mature olive, carob and fruit trees. Alexander Sciortino testified that the blaze was serious enough for Civil Protection to call in reinforcements, and that it destroyed five carob trees outright, wiped out the vines entirely, and damaged several olive trees, some of which were only saved by firefighters' intervention. Joseph Caruana backed this up, describing damage to vines, carob, olive and peach trees, some of which were already dead the following day despite attempts to save them by watering. The Club admitted setting off fireworks nearby but insisted it checked for fire afterwards and found none, even though Civil Protection was later called out, and the farmers themselves reported the matter to the police.
The Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) inspected the site days after the 2021 fire. Its officer, Graziella Tabone, drew up a schedule recording two carob trees totally destroyed, six carob, thirteen olive, two peach and five pear trees partially destroyed, plus a further nine almond and eight olive trees affected or within a 20-metre danger radius of the blaze. The Club did not seriously dispute that a fire had happened in 2021; its defence rested on whether the fireworks were really to blame.
In 2022, a second fire broke out. This time the Respondent Club's own witnesses admitted burning material had landed on the farmers' land, but described it as a minor grass fire, quickly contained with extinguishers and by clearing surrounding vegetation before it reached any trees. Civil Protection officers largely backed this account, saying that by the time they arrived there were no active flames, only burnt patches of dry grass which they wetted down as a precaution, and no burnt trees. No ERA inspection schedule was produced for 2022 with the officer who had inspected the 2021 fire testifying that she no longer had access to that file, leaving the Court to consider photographs taken by one of the farmers and a single valuation from agronomist Carmelo Briffa. The dispute over 2022, then, was less about whether a fire happened and more about how much real damage it caused.
Court's Considerations
Before getting to the facts, the Court threw out the Club's preliminary pleas one by one. It ruled that the Club, registered as a voluntary organisation under number VO/8283, has a distinct legal identity separate from its members, and so can be sued directly in its own name. There was no need to file the proceedings against its president, secretary or treasurer. It also rejected the argument that the case was invalid since the Plaintiff's had failed to file a judicial letter demanding compensation before the lawsuit was filed. The Court noted Maltese law imposes no such requirement, and that the Club already knew a dispute was brewing, since the incidents had already been the subject of correspondence between the parties. The absence of a demand letter might affect who pays legal costs, the Court said, but it does not make a lawsuit invalid or premature.
Was the club to blame?
This was the heart of the case. Under Maltese law, anyone running a "dangerous activity" and the Court treated fireworks as exactly that, is held to a strict standard of diligence and care. Formal paperwork wasn't enough. The Club had a valid pyrotechnics licence, permits and insurance, but the Court said none of that amounts to actually keeping people safe. It found the club fell short in several ways:
● It never seriously assessed the risk of firing rockets next to tinder-dry summer fields.
● No real evidence was given of how wind and weather were checked before the displays.
● Neighbouring farmers were never warned in advance, so nobody could wet the ground or clear dry grass beforehand (precautions the club's own men later proved were both possible and effective when they used them to fight the 2022 fire).
● Nobody told the farmers a fire had even happened on their land in 2022; and when asked why, the Club's officer simply said he "had no reason to," relying on the Club's insurance.
● The Club is legally required to search for and clear away unexploded firework debris afterwards. Its evidence that it had done so was shaky, and two of its own witnesses contradicted each other on whether anyone had actually checked the farmers' field.
● No fire engine was on standby for the morning displays, when both fires broke out, despite an evening fire engine being arranged for the feast itself.
● Crucially, the fact that fires broke out two years running undercut any claim that 2021 was a freak accident and should have pushed the club to tighten things up in 2022 which, the Court found, it largely failed to do.
●
Proving the fireworks caused the fires
The Club argued strongly that no witness had actually seen a firework or its debris land and ignite anything, and that no fire-cause expert had been engaged by either party. The Court accepted that much of the evidence was circumstantial but held that causation in cases like this can be properly established through circumstantial factors, how close in time and place the fire broke out, whether fresh pyrotechnic residue was found, and whether any credible alternative explanation existed, without needing an eyewitness to the exact moment of ignition.
On the 2021 fire, the Court found the case compelling: some damaged trees stood within twenty metres of the firing point, fresh-looking pyrotechnic debris. Described by the ERA officer as days old, not months, was found on the farmers' land, and the fire was noticed within a couple of hours of the display finishing, even on the Club's own account. It rejected the Club's suggestion that the debris could have come from a separate feast held a month earlier and found inconsistencies in the club's account of how thoroughly its members had checked the surrounding fields afterwards. Drawing on established case-law on dangerous activities, the Court held that once the farmers established a prima facie link between the fire and the fireworks, the burden shifted to the Club to prove some intervening cause, accident or force majeure, which it failed to do. On the 2022 fire, causation was barely disputed at all; the club's fight there was over how much damage was really done, not whether its fireworks caused the fire.
The Court concluded that the Club had failed to demonstrate it took all precautions reasonably required to prevent or reduce the inherent risk of harm from this dangerous activity, notwithstanding its formal compliance with licensing and insurance requirements.
Did the farmers share the blame?
The Club argued the farmers should have taken precautions themselves, given years of fireworks in the area, and criticised one farmer for calling club contacts rather than Civil Protection when he first spotted smoke in 2021. The Court wasn't persuaded. Landowners aren't expected to reshape their farms because someone else chooses to do something risky nearby. That responsibility sits with whoever is setting off the fireworks. Since the Club never warned the farmers in advance or coordinated any precautions with them, it couldn't now blame them for not doing more. This defence was dismissed entirely.
Liquidation of Damages
Agronomist Carmelo Briffa valued the losses at €22,865 in total:
a) €4,100 to Joseph Caruana for 2021 - replacement trees, years of tree care and lost fruit and olive harvests, irrigation, pruning and valuation costs.
b) €1,175 to Alexander Sciortino for 2021 - similar losses, on a smaller scale.
c) €11,140 jointly to both men for 2021 - mostly for six mature carob trees, some around 150 years old, including a statutory minimum penalty for destroying protected carob trees under the Trees and Woodlands Protection Regulations.
d) €6,450 to Joseph Caruana for 2022 - a destroyed mature loquat tree, care for fourteen olive trees (ten mature, four younger), and lost fruit and olive harvests projected over five and eight years respectively, of which the single biggest item was €3,200 for lost olive harvest.
The farmers had also asked the Court to recognise further, unquantified losses beyond Briffa's figures, but the Court declined, holding that damages can only be awarded on the basis of concrete, quantified proof actually placed before it and not vague or open-ended claims of additional harm.
The Club attacked all of this. It stated that Briffa's valuations weren't court-appointed, no receipts were shown, his harvest-loss figures used general averages, and the 2022 fire was allegedly too minor to justify tree damage claims at all. The Court wasn't swayed. It noted that the Respondent Club never asked for its own expert, so couldn't complain none was used. Receipts weren't essential either, since much of the claim was about future losses, properly proven through expert estimates, photos and witness evidence rather than invoices. Briffa's use of standard yield figures stood unchallenged by any rival expert, and the Court repeated a point that ran through the whole case: a tree can be seriously and permanently damaged even if only its trunk or base is scorched, whatever it looks like on the surface. The farmers' request for extra, unquantified damages was refused, however, the Court would only award for losses that were actually proven.
Conclusion
In its judgment, the Court rejected all of the Respondent Club's preliminary pleas, including its legal-personality argument, the time-bar claim, the land-title point, the timing objection, and its case on causation, force majeure and shared blame.
The court found the Club liable for the damage suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of the fires that occurred on the 25 July 2021 and 25 July 2022 in the area of Wicc ir-Rahal, Haz-Zebbug. It awarded the Plaintiffs a total of €22,865 in damages and ordered the Club to pay the sums due together with interest running from the date of judgment until date of effective payment.
Krista Refalo is an Associate within Ganado Advocates' dispute resolution team
Disclaimer: Ganado Advocates is responsible for contributing this law report but was not in any way involved as legal advisor for the parties in the judgment being covered in this law report.