Scientist wins €533,000 in court case against Indis over unpaid Luqa project fees

Court rules Robert Cortis should not be left waiting indefinitely for payment simply because a Luqa landfill regeneration project had stalled 

Indis was sued by Robert Cortis after the company attempted to shift payment fees onto the private consortia involved in the project’s tender (File Photo)
Indis was sued by Robert Cortis after the company attempted to shift payment fees onto the private consortia involved in the project’s tender (File Photo)

A scientist was awarded €533,000 in a court case against Indis over unpaid fees for work on a stalled Luqa landfill regeneration project, along with a further €31,093 in a second judgment for separate works carried out on the same project.

Indis, Malta’s largest operator of government-owned industrial parks and facilities, was sued by Robert Cortis after the company attempted to shift payment fees onto the private consortia involved in the project’s tender.

Indis argued that, under the project’s tendering process, the private consortia were expected to initially fund the study themselves and seek reimbursement from the company once the project progressed.

Testifying in court, Indis CEO Jean Pierre Attard said the project had stalled due to unresolved ownership issues, including land occupied by third parties, which prevented it from moving forward until the matters were resolved.

Attard further explained that the company occupying the land had objected to the development while the project’s environmental permit expired, meaning the project required a fresh application to progress.

Judge Audrey Demicoli agreed that the original tender arrangements made sense while the project was active, but said the agreement no longer offered a fair solution given the project’s prolonged suspension.

Demicoli ruled that Cortis should not be left waiting indefinitely for payment simply because the wider project had stalled, with uncertainty still hanging over its future.

The court dismissed arguments that the consortia alone should be responsible for the fees, ruling that Indis was the only entity liable for the debt.

It said this was because Indis had benefited from the report drawn up by Cortis and had not disputed that his work was properly carried out.