2006 expropriation ‘abuse of power serving commercial interests’ – Court

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the expropriation of private land in St Paul’s Bay was unlawful, ruling that the Planning Authority (PA) and Transport Malta facilitated changes that primarily benefited a private residential development.

In two judgments delivered on 13th July 2026, the Court of Appeal upheld earlier rulings declaring the expropriation of approximately 440 square metres of land owned by the Attard Montalto family null and void.

The case centred on land located along Triq it-Tonn, a dead-end street in St Paul’s Bay, where developers SIAR and Rite-Mix (Gatt Brothers) were constructing an eight-storey apartment block.

According to the judgments, the disputed land was earmarked for roadworks intended to alter the existing road layout by creating a turning loop. The plaintiffs argued that this would effectively transform the street into a double-fronted road, improving the development's frontage and providing unobstructed sea views.

The Court agreed that the expropriation constituted an abuse of power, finding that the change in road alignment served private commercial interests rather than a genuine public purpose.

The plaintiffs, represented by lawyers Mark Attard Montalto and Douglas Aquilina, had challenged the expropriation, as well as a 2006 planning decision approving changes to planning guidelines that were supported by Transport Malta.

Transport Malta argued that the project was a landscaping initiative prompted by a request from the St Paul's Bay Local Council for a turning area to facilitate refuse collection.

However, evidence presented during the proceedings contradicted this claim. Refuse collector Joseph Vella testified that waste collection in the area had never been hindered because smaller vehicles were used or collection was carried out on foot. A representative of the local council also stated that there were no records of any request for a turning circle at the location in question.

The Court concluded that the road alignment had instead been altered to accommodate the developer's building line.

In its judgments, the Court rejected the arguments put forward by the authorities, confirmed the earlier findings that the expropriation was unlawful, ordered the cancellation of the expropriation, and directed that the land be returned to its owners.

The Court also declared the related planning decision null and void, effectively overturning the approval that enabled the road alignment changes.