St Paul's Bay land expropriated to help private developers, court rules

Private land in St Paul's Bay was abusively expropriated by the State in 2007 specifically to facilitate the private interests of property developers, a court of appeal has concluded.

Two landmark judgements delivered on July 13 by a bench presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Judges Anthony Ellul and Robert G. Mangion found that authorities had manipulated planning and expropriation processes to alter a road alignment, granting developers unobstructed sea views at the expense of the landowners.

The plaintiffs - members of the Attard Montalto family and many other co-owners of the land, including individuals and companies such as Coastline Development Company Ltd and Polidano Group Ltd - had challenged the government's expropriation of approximately 440 square metres of their land at Triq it-Tonn, St Paul's Bay. The land bordered an apartment complex being constructed by SIAR Property Investments Ltd and Rite Mix (Gatt Brothers) Ltd.

Plaintiffs won the initial court case and have now had that original decision confirmed by a court of appeal, bringing the 20-year dispute to its legal conclusion.

Chronology of a dispute

The conflict began in mid-2005, when the Attard Montalto family and their co-plaintiffs, owners of an 18,000-square-metre tract of land known as "Ta' Bibu" or "Ta' Għar Għasfur," took legal action against SIAR Property Investments Ltd. The developers had begun excavation and construction work on a neighbouring plot, during which they removed a rubble wall separating the two properties. The family obtained a warrant of prohibitory injunction on July 29, 2005, to stop the works, but the court noted that the company continued its operations.

Earlier that year, in May 2005, the then-Malta Transport Authority (ADT) had already submitted a proposal to the planning authorities (PC 0025/05) to alter the road alignment at Triq it-Tonn, ostensibly to create a turning loop for vehicles.

In March 2006, the Planning Board rejected this proposal, finding that it would unnecessarily impact scheduled and third-party property. However, in a move the court described as lacking logic or reasonable justification, the same authority received a nearly identical application later that year. This time, the board approved the change on February 22, 2007, despite ongoing objections from the landowners.

Transport Malta had in the meantime requested the Commissioner of Lands to expropriate a 438-square-metre portion of the family's land to form the new road alignment. Following a revision tied to the change in alignment approved by the planning authority, the figure was adjusted to 442 square metres, and in May 2007, that expropriation was formalised and published in the Government Gazette.

The landowners filed court action that same year.

No public interest

Transport Malta had consistently argued that the road changes were essential to allow large refuse trucks to service the area, claiming the existing route was too steep.

However, the Court of Appeal dismantled this narrative through witness testimony. Joseph Vella, a refuse collection contractor who serviced the area between 2001 and 2012, testified that he never struggled to collect waste, as he always used small vehicles or had employees collect it on foot. Furthermore, representatives from the St Paul's Bay Local Council confirmed that there was no record of the council ever requesting such a turning loop at that site.

The court observed that even after the road was "improved," it remained cramped, with vehicles frequently parking on both sides of the street, effectively rendering the turning loop useless for larger trucks.

Ruling on the 'eyesore'

The court concluded that the expropriated land was not used for traffic management but was instead converted into a pavement and a green area. This was done primarily to cover the "eyesore" of a blank party wall created by the developers' project, which would have otherwise been visible to the public.

In its judgments for the two consolidated cases, the Court of Appeal upheld the original decisions of the First Hall of the Civil Court. It declared the expropriation null and void and ordered the cancellation of the act and the return of the land to its original state. The court also annulled the planning permit (PC 0054/2006), finding that the authorities had engaged in an "abuse of power" to ensure the developer's building project could succeed with optimal sea views.

Although the court ruled the expropriation illegal and annulled the planning decision, the turning loop in question was built on the land years ago.

"It is evident that the authorities wanted to facilitate the private third party so that the development proposed by him would turn out better," the lower court found in its judgment - a conclusion the Court of Appeal adopted as its own.

The Court of Appeal noted that there was no reasonable justification for the "U-turn" between the Planning Board's initial rejection and its approval of an almost identical application less than a year later, finding it more likely that the authority had changed its position to facilitate the private developer's plans.

The court rejected all appeals filed by the Planning Authority and the Land Authority, ordering the authorities to bear the costs of the appeals.

The plaintiffs were represented in the proceedings by Mark Attard Montalto and Douglas Aquilina.