Attard vs Borg — Rubble Wall Built on Neighbour's Land

A planning permit to raise a rubble wall was annulled because half the wall encroached on a neighbour's property without her consent.

Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) · The Honourable Judge Mark Simiana, LL.D · 4 May 2026

Mary Borg applied to the Planning Authority for a permit to sanction a minor realignment and height increase of a rubble wall to 1.2 metres at a site called St. Mary, Triq il-Buskett, Dingli (application PA/0177/24). The Authority granted the permit, but her neighbour Rita Attard challenged the decision before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld Attard's appeal and revoked the permit in November 2025. The key finding was uncontested: the approved wall was positioned along the centre line dividing the two properties, meaning half of its width fell on Attard's land. This was confirmed by Borg's own architect, Perit David Vassallo, who testified at the hearing that the wall was to be built 'fin-nofs' — on the boundary line — and not entirely within Borg's property. Despite this, Borg had declared herself sole owner of the site when submitting her application, as required under Article 71(4)(i) of Chapter 552 of the Laws of Malta. She had neither notified Attard nor obtained her consent before submitting the application. The Tribunal found that both the first and second grounds of Attard's appeal were well-founded: the sole-ownership declaration was inaccurate, and the neighbour's consent had never been sought. Borg then appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing the Tribunal erred in law by concluding she could not be considered 'owner' for planning purposes. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Judge Mark Simiana, dismissed her appeal, upholding the Tribunal's reasoning that planning law requirements on ownership declarations under Article 71(4) had not been satisfied and that the permit could not stand where half the structure was to be built on another person's land without her knowledge or agreement. The case reinforces a well-established principle in Maltese planning law: while the Planning Authority does not adjudicate civil title disputes, it cannot approve development where it is clear and uncontested that the works encroach on a third party's property without that party's consent. A planning permit is always granted saving third party rights, but those rights must be respected at the application stage itself.

Appeal by Mary Borg dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal's decision of 20 November 2025 annulling planning permit PA/0177/24. No permission to build the rubble wall as proposed was reinstated. No fines or criminal penalties involved — purely a civil/administrative planning matter.

• Under Article 71(4)(i) of Chapter 552, a planning applicant must declare whether they are the sole owner or must notify and obtain consent from the actual owner — a false sole-ownership declaration is a valid ground to annul a permit.
• Maltese planning law draws a clear line: the Planning Authority and the Tribunal do not adjudicate civil title disputes, but where encroachment on a neighbour's land is clear and uncontested, the permit cannot stand regardless of any ongoing civil proceedings.
• A planning permit in Malta is always issued 'saving third party rights' under Article 72(1) of Chapter 552, meaning the permit does not guarantee title and cannot override a neighbour's property rights.
• An applicant's own architect admitting in testimony that the proposed structure sits on the boundary line — and thus on a neighbour's land — constitutes strong uncontested evidence sufficient to annul the permit.
• Disputes about where a property boundary actually lies are matters for the Civil Courts, not planning tribunals; however, once a party admits the boundary location, the planning authority must respect it when assessing ownership declarations.

Development Planning Act, Chapter 552 of the Laws of Malta — Article 71(4)(i) (ownership declaration), Article 72(1) (third party rights); Civil Code, Chapter 16 (referenced but held outside Tribunal jurisdiction)