Motorist objects to forced arbitration

A man yesterday filed a constitutional application claiming that the law enforcing arbitration in motor vehicle collisions was in violation of his fundamental human right to a fair hearing. Joseph Muscat filed the case against the Prime Minister, the...

A man yesterday filed a constitutional application claiming that the law enforcing arbitration in motor vehicle collisions was in violation of his fundamental human right to a fair hearing.

Joseph Muscat filed the case against the Prime Minister, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General.

Mr Muscat told the court that he had been involved in a traffic accident last November in Marsa. He was now being subjected to forced arbitration by the insurance company representing the other driver involved in the collision.

The Malta Arbitration Centre had appointed an arbiter to hear this case but Mr Muscat had refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Centre.

He is arguing that the European Convention of Human Rights referred to the right of an individual to have a civil claim decided by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. He claimed that the arbitration was forced and therefore the legal requirements for a fair hearing to be impartial and independent were not satisfied. In this case, the arbiter appointed to hear his case was chosen by the Arbitration Centre and had no security of tenure. Furthermore, the Arbitration Centre was, more or less, subject to the control of the Minister for Justice. Thus, one could not say that the choice of an arbiter was independent of the executive branch of the government.

Mr Muscat added that the Arbitration Centre could choose, on a subjective basis, the arbiters who would hear the case. Such arbiters were subject to disciplinary procedures established by the centre. As a result, there was no guarantee of independence and impartiality.

In conclusion, Mr Muscat said that arbitration was only considered valid if both parties to a dispute agreed to submit their case to arbitration. Every citizen was entitled to recourse to the courts unless an agreement to the contrary was reached.

The court was asked to declare that the law governing forced arbitration in motor vehicle cases was in violation of the European Convention and the Constitution and to provide a remedy.

Lawyers Josè Herrera and Veronique Dalli acted for Mr Muscat.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.