Overseas bank accounts are not beyond financial disclosure in a Maltese separation case

A request for relevant bank statements does not necessarily have to be directed to the bank. A spouse may be required to produce records relating to his or her own accounts, including accounts held abroad.

In Z1 v Z2 (Application 125/2018/5 AL), Malta’s Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction) addressed that issue on 28 April 2026. The panel was Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Hon. Dr Robert G. Mangion and Hon. Dr Simone Grech.

An appeal during a separation case

The appeal arose during an ongoing separation action and challenged the rejection of several applications. Two concerned financial documents which the wife wanted from the husband. The first court had accepted objections that authenticated bank statements should be obtained from bank representatives rather than from the account holder.

Why the court disagreed

The Court of Appeal did not accept that approach. Article 637 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure allows a party to ask for the production of documents in another person’s possession in the circumstances the provision sets out. The court considered the requested records relevant to the dispute and distinguished them from privileged documents.

It also referred to the requirements that evidence be relevant and that the best evidence reasonably available be produced. Those requirements did not support a blanket refusal to require the account holder to supply his own records. The court was particularly unpersuaded by the suggestion that obtaining overseas statements meant travelling abroad, when there was no evidence that remote access was unavailable.

What the court ordered

The order required a sworn note with statements for the accounts within the period in question, including accounts which had since closed. The documents did not have to be authenticated at that stage; the first court could deal with authentication later. A deadline applied, with the possibility of contempt proceedings if it was not met.

The appeal succeeded on the two financial-document applications, and the other challenges were rejected.

What the decision means

The ruling concerns a defined disclosure obligation. It does not give unrestricted access to every aspect of another person’s financial life.

Its practical lesson is that where an account is held, and how its statements are authenticated, are separate questions from whether relevant records can be requested from a party. Where spouses are separating and some of their assets are abroad, a conversation about your own situation is the right first step. See personal separation and division of property. For digital assets held on platforms or wallets, see cryptocurrency in a Maltese separation or divorce.

For a practical guide to preparing financial records, see financial disclosure in a Maltese separation.

Editorial note

The parties are shown as in the court’s published title, Z1 v Z2. Family names, personal chronology, account identifiers and medical details have been left out.