Copyright maltatoday
The Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling confirming that questions concerning development and land use fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority and the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, not the ordinary civil courts. The case stemmed from a dispute between Godwin and Amanda Gatt and the Planning Authority over a rural property known as Kristu Rebbieħ, situated in the area of Għajn Klieb, limits of Rabat. The Gatts had purchased the land in December 2014 and claimed that the building on the site had been used as a residence since before 1978, a crucial criterion under the Rural Policy and Design Guidance (2014), which governs the rehabilitation of existing rural dwellings. Their application sought permission to demolish derelict structures, carry out restoration works, excavate a cellar, and beautify the surrounding area. However, the Planning Authority rejected the request after determining that the site had not been used as a residence before 1978. The couple had already appealed this decision before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, both of which dismissed their claims. In 2021, the Gatts turned to the First Hall of the Civil Court, asking it to issue a declaration confirming the pre-1978 residential use of the property. The Authority objected, arguing that the civil court lacked jurisdiction since such matters were regulated by specialised planning legislation. In October 2022, the First Hall upheld the objection, dismissing the case. The couple appealed that decision, insisting they were not challenging any planning decision but merely asking the court to establish a factual point relevant to their property rights. But the Court of Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Judges Anthony Ellul and Josette Demicoli, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the lower court’s ruling in its entirety. The judges held that the case “clearly arose as a consequence of the Planning Authority’s decision” and was, by its nature, administrative. They noted that the applicants were attempting to revisit an issue already decided by the Tribunal in 2019 and confirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2020. The bench observed that the action “was evidently intended to strengthen their prospects of obtaining a development permit,” and that such a strategy was legally impermissible. The court reiterated that challenges to planning decisions must follow the procedures established by law, first before the Tribunal, and then, if necessary, by appeal to the Court of Appeal. Once those remedies are exhausted, the same questions cannot be reintroduced through civil proceedings. The court emphasised the clear separation between civil and planning jurisdictions, stating that ordinary courts cannot act as a parallel appeal mechanism for development disputes. The appeal was rejected, and the earlier judgment confirmed in full, with costs to be borne by the appellants.
