Insights

In a judgment delivered on 14 February 2025 by the First Hall, Civil Court (the “Court”) in the case of Captain Tara Merlin Ehrlich vs MV Force India, the Court examined the interplay between maritime employment rights and the legal framework for enforcing such claims under Maltese law. The crux of the dispute related to allegations of unpaid wages and other expenses allegedly owed to Captain Tara Merlin Ehrlich (the “Captain”) employed aboard the Maltese-flagged vessel Force India (the “Vessel”). This case not only highlights the protections available to seafarers under the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (COCP), Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta (the “COCP”), and the Merchant Shipping Act, Chapter 234 of the Laws of Malta (THE “Merchant Shipping Act”), but also provides insight into the evidentiary standards required for successfully pursuing such a claim in the Maltese courts.

Background to the dispute and the legal proceedings in Malta

The Captain filed a legal claim before the Court against the Vessel, over alleged unpaid wages and related expenses. The Captain sought a total of €27,088.45 in unpaid salary, along with €446 for a flight ticket and €167.87 for accommodation — costs she claimed were incurred in the course of her employment and were contractually due from the Vessel’s operators.

The Captain supported her claim with documentation, including the Vessel’s registration certificate, a copy of her employment agreement, and payslips. The Captain claimed, that despite requesting payment on various occasions, the Vessel’s representatives had allegedly failed to settle the outstanding amounts claimed by her.

Under her employment agreement entered into with the owner of the Vessel, the Captain was appointed as captain of the Force India for an initial three-week period, with the contract set to renew automatically unless terminated by notice or under specific conditions outlined within the agreement. The agreement also included a reimbursement clause, whereby the Employer undertook to cover reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by the Captain in the course of her duties and that any individual expense over €140 had to be pre-approved by the Employer and supported by receipts.

The Captain argued that the sums claimed were certain, liquid, and due, and maintained that the defendants had no valid defence to rebut the claims being raised in Court. On this basis, she initially requested that the Court dispenses with a full hearing, relying on the simplified procedure available under Article 167 of the COCP.

The Court, however, ordered the case to proceed by way of ordinary procedure. Court-appointed curators, acting on behalf of the absent defendant, responded by calling for more detailed evidence to substantiate the Captain’s claims. The curators noted they were not yet fully informed of the facts and reserved the right to submit a further response once communication with the defendant was established.

The case proceeded to a full hearing, with the Captain required to provide clear proof that the claimed amounts were due and arose directly from her employment. The outcome of the case depended on whether the evidence met the legal threshold necessary for the Court to uphold her claim.

Jurisdiction in Malta and the applicable provisions under Maltese Law

The COCP provides that the civil courts of Malta shall have jurisdiction in rem against ships or vessels on various maritime claims, including but not limited to (i) claims by the master, officers, or member of the crew, or complement of a ship, for wages and other sums due to them in respect of their employment on the  ship  including  costs  of  repatriation, and social security contributions payable on their behalf; and (ii) any claim by a master, shipper, charterer or agent in respect of disbursements made by them on account of a ship or her owners.

In such instances, the COCP provides that such an action may also be brought before the civil courts of Malta against that ship or vessel, (i) where the person who would be liable on the claim for an action in personam was, when the cause of action arose, an owner or charterer of, or in possession or in control of, the ship or vessel, if at the time when the action is brought  the  relevant  person  is  either  an  owner  or beneficial owner of that ship or the bareboat charterer of it; and (ii) also against any other vessel that the relevant person fully owns or beneficially owns at the time the action is brought.

An action in rem and an action in personam are two types of legal actions that differ in what they focus on. An action in rem is a case that involves a specific object or property, like a vessel, where the court’s decision affects the property itself, regardless of who owns it. On the other hand, an action in personam refers to legal actions or proceedings that are directed against a specific person or entity, seeking to impose a judgment, obligation, or enforce a legal right on that individual or entity. In personam actions are personal in nature and involve disputes or legal matters that are linked to an individual’s or entity’s legal rights, responsibilities, or liabilities. So, while an action in rem is about rights in relation to a property, an action in personam is about one person’s responsibility to another.

It is also important to note that under the Merchant Shipping Act, that such a claim for wages and other specified sums due to the master, officers and other members of the vessel’s complement are secured by a special privilege upon the vessel and shall survive the sale of a vessel by up to one year.

The Court’s considerations and final judgment

The Court established its jurisdiction in rem over the Vessel, affirming its authority to hear the case under Maltese law. Upon reviewing the evidence presented, the Court found that the Captain’s claim for unpaid salary was duly supported by the necessary supporting evidence.

The Captain also sought payment for unused leave, which had accumulated but was not taken before her employment ended. The Court accepted her claim for payment in lieu of untaken leave, as the evidence showed that the leave was validly accrued and the company had acknowledged the claim and this in accordance with her employment agreement.

In its judgment, the Court also concluded that the Captain failed to adequately prove her claim for the reimbursement of travel and accommodation expenses. While she did present documents indicating such expenses had been incurred, her testimony made no mention of them. Moreover, the Captain offered no explanation linking these expenses to her work duties or to any instructions received from her principal. Crucially, the Captain did not declare under oath that the expenses had been approved by er principal, as was contractually required under her employment agreement for expenses exceeding €140.

This case serves as a reminder of a fundamental legal principle wherein a plaintiff must always provide full and proper evidence to support their claims. This obligation holds even when the defendant fails to appear in court. In the absence of such proof and if the plaintiff does not prove their case, then the defendant must be acquitted.

Concluding remarks

The judgment highlights key lessons in the enforcement of maritime employment rights under Maltese law. While the Captain’s claims for unpaid wages and reimbursement of expenses were supported by certain documentation, her failure to provide adequate proof of the expenses led to the dismissal of the claims pertaining to the additional expenses claimed.

This judgment serves as a reminder that seafarers, despite having legal protections under the COCP and the Merchant Shipping Act, must meet the necessary evidentiary standards to succeed in their claims. It underscores the importance of clear and complete documentation, and the need for plaintiffs to prove their case thoroughly. The case ultimately reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, ensuring fairness and consistency in the judicial process.

Disclaimer: Ganado Advocates is responsible for contributing this law report but was not in any way involved as legal advisor for the parties in the judgement being covered in this law report. This article was first published in ‘The Malta Independent’ on 09/04/2025.