MALTA Law and Practice Contributed by: Antoine Cremona, Louis Cassar Pullicino, Clement Mifsud-Bonnici and Yasmine Ellul, Ganado Advocates
number of international arbitrations having Malta as their seat of arbitration. It is run by a publicly appoint - ed board of governors that is responsible for the policy and general administration of the affairs and business of the Centre and has its own secretariat. The MAC offers basic facilities for the conduct of arbitration and may act as the default appointing authority with a choice of arbitrator(s) from panels of professionals practising different areas of law. Malta is also regularly designated as the seat of ad hoc international arbitrations, as well as the seat of institutional arbitrations under the rules of leading arbitration institutions, most commonly, the Interna - tional Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). No new institutions have been established in Malta in 2024-25. 1.4 National Courts The Superior Courts (the First Hall of the Civil Courts and the Court of Appeal) are vested with the powers to stay arbitration proceedings, grant interim relief, hear procedural challenges, and make recognition orders. The specific division of powers and jurisdiction of the particular courts depend on the nature of the relief sought. The courts are regulated by the Arbitration Act (Chapter 387 of the Laws of Malta) (the “Act”) and the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta) (the “Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure”), and will be addressed in more detail in subsequent sections of this chapter. The Act and the Arbitration Rules (Subsidiary Legisla - tion 387.01) (the “Rules”) are the principal legislative instruments regulating arbitration in Malta. The Act is modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Interna - tional Commercial Arbitration of 1985 (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”), and the Rules are likewise modelled on the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules of 1976. The Act also incorporates the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (the “New York Convention”), the Geneva Protocol on Arbi - 2. Governing Legislation 2.1 Governing Law
tration Clauses of 1923 (the “Geneva Protocol”), the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbi - tral Awards of 1927 (the “Geneva Convention”), and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Dis - putes between States and Nationals of Other States of 1965 (the “ICSID Convention”). The UNCITRAL Model Law is annexed to the Act as the First Schedule of the Act and forms an integral part thereof in its entirety. The Act has not yet been amended to reflect the lat - er versions of the UNCITRAL Model Law, although reform initiatives on this front are expected. 2.2 Changes to National Law Until an amendment in August 2020, the MAC was the designated court for recognition and enforce - ment purposes under the New York Convention. The decisions of the chairperson of the Centre were final and could not be appealed against, although noth - ing barred a party from subsequently bringing fresh proceedings for recognition and enforcement if rec - ognition proceedings were initially not accepted by the chairperson. One significant feature of the 2020 amendment was the introduction of a right of appeal before the Court of Appeal against a decision by the chairperson of the MAC on the registration of a foreign award. An appeal by an aggrieved party must be filed within 20 days from the date on which the determination of the chair - person of the MAC on the registration of the foreign award is communicated to the parties. Such appeals are to be lodged with the Court of Appeal in its inferior jurisdiction. Through this substantial amendment, the recogni - tion court is effectively no longer just the MAC but there is a second instance proceeding in front of the Court of Appeal. Notwithstanding the inclusion of a second tier, there has been a marked increase in the efficiency of the process leading to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in Malta over the past few years. However, the two-tier process will, in the longer term, delay the process of exequatur of international awards, although it is expected to produce a greater level of consistency and predictability of outcome.
492 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook