Articles 490(2) and 492 of the Maltese Civil Code establish that co-proprietors must proportionately contribute to expenses for maintaining common property. Specifically, Article 492 empowers a co-proprietor to legally oblige fellow co-owners to share necessary maintenance expenses.
Indeed, Article 490 of the Civil Codes states as follows:
‘490.(1) The shares of the co-owners shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be equal.
(2) Every co-owner shall participate in the advantages and burdens of the community in proportion to his share’.
Whereas Article 492 of the same Civil Code stipulates the following:
‘492. Each of the co-owners may compel the others to share with him the expense necessary for the preservation of the common property, saving the right of any of such other co-owners to release himself from his liability therefor by abandoning his right of co-ownership’.
Yet, disputes regarding the responsibility of co-proprietors to share costs associated with common maintenance frequently arise in Maltese property law. Typically, these disputes involve one co-owner undertaking necessary repairs in shared areas and subsequently seeking reimbursement from another co-proprietor, who may refuse to contribute.
Meanwhile, the old case Antonio Azzopardi vs Emmanuela Abela et (Court of Appeal Inferior Jurisdiction, 12 December 1936) clarifies that prior consent from all co-owners is not strictly required when repairs are urgent and necessary. The court held that a co-owner may independently incur essential expenses provided these expenses are reasonable and justified by necessity. In more recent case law, such as Pullicino vs Scerri (Civil Court, First Hall, 21 March 2016), Maltese courts have reaffirmed this legal principle. In this case, the court explicitly noted that co-owners may legitimately claim reimbursement for essential repairs even without prior consent. Typically, a technical expert (perit), appointed by the court, evaluates the necessity and reasonableness of these repairs, significantly influencing judicial decisions.
This means that Maltese courts also clearly distinguish between necessary maintenance and optional enhancements or modifications. Expenses related to improvements exceeding basic repairs usually require explicit prior agreement; without such consent, recovering these costs can prove challenging.
Equally interesting, Maltese courts do not necessarily mandate strict documentary proof, such as receipts, to substantiate claims for reimbursement. Decisions in Portelli vs Cauchi (Court of Appeal Inferior Jurisdiction, 22 June 2005) and Camilleri vs Pavia (Court of Appeal Inferior Jurisdiction, 29 January 2009) confirm that credible oral testimony and indirect evidence can suffice.
What seems clear, therefore, is that Maltese judicial practice aims to uphold equitable responsibilities among co-owners. Nevertheless, my view remains that reaching a prior agreement between the other co owners is the optimal option when it comes to common repairs.
