A relationship and plans for property works do not, by themselves, prove joint ownership

Property disputes after a relationship breaks down often turn on what the parties agreed and what the evidence proves. An understanding about future building works is not necessarily proof that a property was bought jointly in the first place.

In Emanuel Cutajar v Jennifer Sammut (Application 123/2021/1 AJD), Malta’s Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction) examined that distinction on 13 January 2026. The court consisted of Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Hon. Dr Robert Mangion and Hon. Dr Simone Grech, as named in the judgment.

A property dispute between former partners

The appeal came from the Civil Court, First Hall, and not from the Family Section. It is reported here because it concerns a substantial property dispute between former partners. The claimant argued that the property had been acquired under an arrangement in which the defendant appeared as owner on behalf of both of them, commonly described as a mandat prestanome.

What the evidence showed

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence did not establish the alleged arrangement. It examined the contractual material, the testimony, and the difference between acquiring the property and later discussions about finishing works.

The evidence supported acquisition by the defendant in her own name. Discussions about recognising the claimant’s contribution if he carried out the planned works did not show that, at the time of purchase, she was acquiring an undivided share on his behalf. The court treated the alleged original nominee arrangement and the possible later recognition of contributions as two different propositions.

Article 1347

The claimant also relied on article 1347 of the Civil Code to argue that there was an agreement on the property and its price. The court rejected that argument in the light of its findings about what had actually been agreed and proved. It dismissed the appeal, with costs against the appellant.

What the decision does not say

The decision does not establish that former cohabitants can never have rights in a property, nor does it decide every possible claim for expenditure or contributions. It explains why this particular ownership claim failed on the evidence before the court.

Its practical value lies in separating the assumptions that grow out of a relationship from the legal basis of a right to property. If you are in or leaving a relationship and property is involved, a conversation about your own situation is the right first step. See cohabitation and ending a cohabitation, or read cohabitation in Malta.

Editorial note

The parties are named as in the published judgment. Personal chronology, property locations, financial particulars and medical details have been left out.