Court of appeal upholds rejection of $740 million US defamation award sought for enforcement in Malta

The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision by the First Hall of the Civil Court refusing to enforce a $740 million defamation judgment issued by a Florida court, ruling that the “astronomic” sum was “contrary to Maltese public order”.

The case of Mehmet Tatlici against Ugor Tatlici, concerned an appeal filed by Mehmet Tatlici, who had sought to have the Florida judgment recognised and executed in Malta.

The Florida court, in January 2020, had found Ugor Tatlici liable for defamation and awarded his brother Mehmet $740 million in damages.

The First Hall had rejected the enforcement request, citing Article 827(1)(c) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, which allows Maltese courts to refuse recognition of foreign judgments that offend public order.

The court found the damages awarded to be “astronomically disproportionate” and incompatible with Maltese legal principles, particularly the strict limits imposed on moral damages in local defamation cases.

In its judgment delivered on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal largely confirmed the First Hall’s findings.

It reiterated that while foreign judgments are generally enforceable in Malta, they cannot stand where they contradict Maltese procedural safeguards or public order.

The court identified several reasons for refusing enforcement, including the absence of a reasoned explanation for the massive damages awarded, the disproportionate nature of the sum in comparison with Maltese standards, and procedural irregularities in notifying the defendant of the Florida proceedings.

Mehmet Tatlici’s argument that the Florida judgment was protected under the EU’s 2024 anti-SLAPP Directive was dismissed, with the court clarifying that the directive does not apply to disputes between private individuals.

Procedurally, the court remarked that the plaintiff had failed to provide a complete and unredacted copy of the foreign judgment, preventing a full assessment of the claim. Although the appeal succeeded in part on points concerning the completeness of the judgment record, the overall decision to refuse enforcement was maintained.

Costs were awarded such that the appellant bore the expenses of the principal appeal, while the respondent was ordered to pay those of the cross-appeal.