The Court of Appeal, composed of Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri, on April 26, 2013, in the case A (woman) vs B (ex- fiancé) held, among other things, that for the parties to be engaged, it was not necessary to have a formal contract, nor a ring. It was not even necessary for the wedding date to be fixed.

The facts in this case were as follows:

The court noted that the parties had been together for approximately 12 years. The defendant could have had valid reasons to terminate the engagement in 1997, but in 2004, he was not so justified

In this case, A (woman) filed legal proceedings against her ex-partner B, to recover damages suffered after the break-up of their engagement. Action was taken on basis of article 1,031 of the Civil Code and article 1,125 of the Civil Code which provide:

“1,031. Every person, however, shall be liable for the damage which occurs through his fault.”

“1,125. Where any person fails to discharge an obligation which he has contracted, he shall be liable in damages.”

The parties started dating in 1992, when the applicant was still 16. They acquired a garage with basement and airspace by virtue of a contract dated May 12, 1997, in the acts of notary Pierre Cassar. The woman had a 40 per cent share and the man, a 60 per cent share of the property.

They also agreed privately, on May 12, 1997, that if their betrothal were to terminate for whatsoever reason, the applicant obliged herself to sell to her partner her share for Lm9,000 in addition to the costs she would incur in connection with the property.

In 1997, the man accused the woman of double-timing him, with a colleague at work. Their relationship did not end, however, the man forgave the woman and remained with her.

On August 9, 2003, their son was born out of wed-lock. After the birth of their son, they attended the Cana Marriage Counselling course in October 2003.

In the meantime, they developed the airspace over their garage, for the purposes of constructing their future matrimonial home. The woman bought furniture for their home, as well as the doors out of her savings.

Subsequently she discovered that he had an amorous affair with a married woman.

He admitted his new relationship, and also moved in to live with his new partner, at the very place, which he was doing up with his ex.

The woman ended their engagement and proceeded to sue the man for damages, demanding payment of her share of their property and refund of all expenses incurred by her with interest.

The defendant, in reply, contested damages on grounds that they were never engaged. He rebutted having any intention of marrying her, after she allegedly betrayed him. He only, however, agreed to pay her share of the property, Lm9,000.

On October 29, 2009, the First Hall of the Civil Court declared that the engagement between the parties was terminated without just cause, for which the defendant was responsible. He was condemned to pay €16,037 damages and an additional sum of €20,964 representing the applicant’s share of the property, in terms of the private agreement dated May 12, 2004.

The court rejected the applicant’s requests to recover all gifts which she gave the defendant during their courtship. The court condemned him to pay all costs including the warrant of injunction No 229/05 together with interest on the amount of €16,037 from the date of this decision until the date of payment, plus legal interests on €20,964 from September 21, 2004, until the date of payment.

The defendant appealed from the decision of the first court, and asked for its variation in particular asking the court to revoke that part where the court declared that their engagement was terminated for no good reason, and where he was held exclusively to blame for the termination of their engagement.

The defendant contested further having to pay damages €16,037 as well as interests on €20,964, as from September 21, 2004.

The court was satisfied that the parties were in fact engaged, with the intention to marry, even if they were not formally engaged and even if the applicant had not received any engagement ring.

It noted that the first court did not find the defendant’s version to be credible.

It resulted that the parties had intimate relations and it appeared that they were making preparations to marry.

In this respect, the Court of Appeal would only disturb the appraisal of facts by the first court, for grave reasons and in order to prevent an injustice.

For there to be an engagement, it was not necessary to have a formal contract, nor a ring. It was not even necessary for the wedding date to be fixed.

The court noted that the parties had been together for approximately 12 years. The man could have had valid reasons to terminate the engagement in 1997, but in 2004, he was not so justified.

The Court of Appeal felt that the first court was correct to hold him solely responsible and to find that the applicant had good reason to call off their engagement.

Interest on €20,964: As the parties had obligation to appear for the contract arose after one year, interest could only commence as from September 21, 2005 and not in 2004.

Damages: As the applicant did not produce all receipts, the court reduced the amount to be reimbursed to her to €13,019.

For these reasons on April 26, 2013, the Court of Appeal gave judgment by ordering that interest on €20,964 accrued as from September 12, 2005, and not from 2004. It also reduced the amount of damages payable to the applicant to €13,019, from €16,037. The remaining judgment of the first court was confirmed.

As regards judicial costs, the defendant was condemned to pay five-sixths and the applicant one-sixth.

Dr Karl Grech Orr is a partner at Ganado Advocates.