Small Claims Tribunal (Amendment) Bill: An analysis of the proposed reforms

The Small Claims Tribunal, established in 1995, was created to provide a straightforward, accessible and efficient mechanism for resolving minor disputes. Its procedure was deliberately simplified, operating outside the structure of the ordinary courts and enabling claims to be determined summarily, often on the basis of equitable considerations rather than strict legal formalities.¹ At present, under the Small Claims Tribunal Act, Chapter 380 of the laws of Malta, the tribunal has jurisdiction over monetary claims not exceeding €5,000. Proceedings are presided over by an adjudicator who is empowered to manage the process with flexibility to ensure a fair and proportionate resolution.

The Tribunal’s efficiency has long been attributed to the simplicity of its procedures. Its monetary jurisdiction has expanded gradually over time; from its initial threshold of 100LM, later increased to 250LM, and then 1,500LM before ultimately reaching €5,000 following the legislative amendments introduced by Act IV of 2016.

Following thirty years of operation, a bill has now been introduced proposing substantial amendments aimed at modernising the Tribunal’s structure and adapting to contemporary legal and social demands.

Overview of the Proposed Amendments

The Small Claims Tribunal (Amendment) Bill (Bill no.152, read for the first time in Parliament at the sitting of 21st October 2024) maintains a number of important amendments to the Small Claims Tribunal Act. The most notable amendment is the increase of the Tribunal’s monetary jurisdiction from €5,000 to €10,000.² This proposal is motivated following statistics that showed that 52% of cases between January 2022 and July 2024 were forwarded to the Court of Magistrates which contained claims between €5,000 and €10,000.

Subsequently, the Bill also revises the manner in which cases are going to be decided. It replaces the existing Article 7 of the Act and proposes that all claims and counterclaims below €1,500 will be decided on the basis of equity, while all claims exceeding such amount (and limited to €10,000) will be decided in accordance with the law.³

However, it was observed during the legislative processes’ discussions that claims of up to €5,000 have been handled efficiently. Years of practical experience, both from those adjudicating as well as legal professionals, demonstrate that these types of cases are typically resolved promptly and expeditiously on equitable grounds. For this reason, establishing the threshold at €5,000 preserves the Tribunal’s simplicity for small claims while ensuring that the larger claims or more complex matters follow a structured legal assessment. For this reason, during the parliamentary debates, it has been decided and confirmed by Hon. Jonathan Attard MP, in his capacity as the Minister for Justice, that Bill 152 should be amended to reflect that claims of up to €5,000 shall be decided on the basis of equity and anything over this amount, and up to €10,000 will be decided on the basis of law, instead of the initial €1,500.

A further innovation is the introduction of a system enabling adjudicators to receive evidence, proof and submissions in writing to reduce the need for physical sittings.⁴ When a sitting is required, priority is given to video conferencing or other online means. These two new proposals further prove the Bill’s objective of moving the Tribunal towards a more current and digitalised system.

As an additional minor proposal, the Bill raises the penalty for vexatious and frivolous claims from €232.94 to €250,⁵ potentially to provide a rounded-up amount to the current amount of €232.94 which would have been the Euro equivalent of the earlier amount in Maltese Lira.

Another significant proposed amendment which was mentioned in the parliamentary debates concerns the appointment of adjudicators.⁶ These would serve a term of five years with the possibility of reappointment for an additional five years. This change responds to the practical need for continuity, as currently adjudicators are only permitted to complete a single term without the possibility of reappointment.

Strengthening Practical Justice & Considerations for the Reform

As briefly highlighted above, the proposed reforms introduce several substantive procedural and structural changes to the Small Claims Tribunal aimed at strengthening its effectiveness, accessibility and overall efficiency. It strengthens modernisation by encouraging adjudicators to rely on written submissions and documentary evidence such as contracts, receipts and correspondence, thereby reducing the reliance on physical hearings.⁷ This shift represents contemporary judicial practice adopted across various jurisdictions. This international trend emphasises accessibility as well as the reduction of unnecessary procedural burdens. With this approach, parties would be more accommodated and allow disputes to be resolved in a more streamlined manner.⁸

Moreover, the increase in the Tribunal’s monetary competence to €10,000 is expected to redirect a substantial volume of cases from the Court of Magistrates. These cases previously made up a significant share of the inferior courts’ workload, as briefly noted above. Their reallocation allows magistrates to focus on more complex matters, enhancing efficiency across the judicial system, while also reducing the financial burden on parties, making dispute resolution more affordable. Efficiency can be measured using three key criteria, namely, (a) the length of the proceedings, (b) the clearance rate of decided cases as compared to those incoming, and (c) the number of pending cases.⁹ By improving these three criteria, the reform is aimed at delivering faster and more consistent resolution of claims.

Whilst a number of considerations have been taken into the Bill’s proposals, one thing remains at the core of the values of the Tribunal – the Tribunal’s accessibility of proceedings. The law continues to allow parties to represent themselves, be assisted by a legal practitioner or procurator, or rely on another trusted person. However, the shift toward written and online procedures necessitates measures that ensure individuals who are unfamiliar with legal processes or technology can still navigate the system effectively. In turn, however, this has given rise to the expectation that clear, user-friendly guidance such as explanatory materials or a handbook, should accompany the reform to safeguard equal access for all. The priority shall always remain that of ‘accessible justice’.

Essentially, to support the increased jurisdiction and procedural demands, attention must also be given to the Tribunal’s administrative and operational capacity. An increase in caseload naturally requires additional adjudicators, adequate staffing and appropriate resources. Without these, delays may arise, undermining the efficiency this reform seeks to achieve. Increasing the remuneration for adjudicators is equally important to attract sufficient professionals willing to serve this role, especially given the responsibilities associated with the Tribunal’s expanded competence.¹⁰

Conclusion

It is only natural to conclude that the proposed amendments through Bill 152 mark a significant step in the evolution of the Small Claims Tribunal. With a development in competence, modernised procedures, as well as a renewed emphasis on accessibility and efficiency, the Bill seeks to create a system better suited to current judicial and societal needs.

Yet, whether these objectives will be achieved in practice will depend on the adequacy of resources and effective adaptation of procedural innovations. The upcoming implementation process will reveal the true impact of these wide-reaching reforms.

¹ Fiorella Mifsud Saydon, ‘The Concept of Equity as Applied in the Small Claims Tribunal’ (dissertation, 2008).

² Small Claims Tribunal (Amendment) Bill, HR (XIV Legislature, 2024) [152].

³ ibid.

⁴ Ibid n 2.

⁵ ibid.

⁶ Deb (Adjunct Com), 26 November 2025, (Legislature XIV, Sitting No. 047)

⁷ Deb (Com), 20 October 2025, (Legislature XIV, Sitting No.390)

⁸ Deb (Adjunct Com), (n 6)

⁹ Matthew Agius, ‘Fewer Pending Cases Thanks to Small Claims Court Reform’ (Malta Today / 22 April 2015)

¹⁰ Deb (Com), (n 18).

Disclaimer: Ganado Advocates is responsible for contributing to 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 24/12/2025.