Jactitation suits as a remedy to protect yourself from legal threats
Under Maltese law, when a person asserts a legal right without actually bringing a case to trial, the law provides a remedy known as a jactitation suit, or in Maltese, ġudizzju ta’ jattanza.
The purpose of a jactitation suit is to compel the person making the claim to either bring the case to trial within a short, fixed period or be permanently barred from pursuing it in the future. Article 403 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure provides that if any claim is vaunted, either in a judicial act or otherwise in writing, a person may, within one year, request by sworn application that the court fix a period, not exceeding three months, within which the jactitator (the person asserting the right) must initiate proceedings. Failure to comply allows the court to impose perpetual silence, permanently preventing the jactitator from pursuing the claim. This period may only be suspended if the jactitator applies for legal aid within the first four days.
One of the most notable jactitation cases in Malta concerned Air Malta in the aftermath of the Pan Am Flight 103 terrorist attack, in which a Boeing 747 was destroyed by a bomb over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members on board. An allegation was being made that the bomb had been off-loaded from an Air Malta flight. Insurances, through their representative Dr. Hugh Peralta, sent judicial letters demanding US$32 million in damages. However, they never filed a lawsuit. The Government and Air Malta requested the court to impose a time limit for bringing the claim. On the 15th of December 1997, Judge Albert J. Magri accepted the Government’s and AirMalta’s demands and fixed a three-month period within which an action for damages was to to be instituted. The family members failed to bring proceedings within this period, and their right to pursue the claim was extinguished.
Our Courts have held that for a successful jactitation suit, the defendant must have asserted a claim in writing over that object, and that the claim was spontaneous and not provoked by the plaintiff. The claim made by the defendant must also be actionable before a court of law, specific or capable of being made specific, and not dependent on an uncertain event. Courts emphasise that jactitation suits are exceptional and will not be granted lightly, respecting the principle that no one should be compelled against their will to institute proceedings.
In John Mary Dalli sive Jon Jon and D & B Catering Ltd vs Incorvaja Leonard, the defendant sent a letter to Jon Jon asserting that the property on which the applicant was building belonged to him and demanding compensation. Jon Jon was not the owner of the property, but rather the director of D & B Catering Ltd, the company that had purchased it. The defendant argued that because the letter was addressed to Jon Jon personally, rather than to the company itself, the claims were not actionable. Both the First Hall and the Court of Appeal rejected this argument, ruling that the company had a legitimate interest in resolving the legal uncertainty, as the defendant’s allegations directly affected its rights over the property. Consequently, a three-month period was imposed within which the defendant had to institute proceedings.
The action of vaunting exists to protect individuals from indefinite legal threats. Without it, a person could repeatedly assert a right against another without ever bringing a case to trial. However, a jactitation suit also limits the fundamental right of access to the courts, thus the court will not grant it lightly. Moreover, the law stipulates certain limitations to curb abuse, for example a jactitation suit cannot be brought against any absent person nor may any such suit be instituted or prosecuted against any minor or other person who is under any disability to sue or to be sued.
FAQs
- 1. Someone keeps threatening to sue me but never does. What can I do?
- You can file a jactitation suit to force them either to sue within a short period or lose the right to sue forever.
2. How long does a person have to sue me if I succeed in a jactitation suit?
The law gives discretion to the Court, however such time cannot be more than 3 months.
3. What is the purpose and practical use of the jactitation suit?
The purpose of a jactitation suit is to abridge the usual time limits which are set up by law to bring about a case before the Maltese Courts. Say for example, one of the neighbours of two adjacent properties is arguing that the demarcation of the boundary wall is incorrect. Such an action is not time-barred, and can be brought before the Court at any time. This may create a scenario of uncertainty, even in the eventuality that one of the owners decides to sell the property and thus subjecting himself to litigation by third-parties. Thus in such a scenario, the owner who is attempting to sell, may ask the Court to impose a time limit on his neighbour to instigate proceedings to establish the boundary lines.
4. Can I file a jactitation suit if someone just verbally threatened me with a lawsuit?
No. The claim must be made in writing for the court to consider a jactitation suit.
5. Can I file a jactitation suit against anyone?
Not always. You cannot file against minors, people under legal disability, or absent persons.
For more information you can contact one of our Team Members at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates.
