Appeals Court Confirms Guilty Verdict Against Schembri Infrastructure Ltd Directors over Employee Wages and Entitlements
On 27 March 2026, the Appeals Court confirmed the guilty verdict against two directors of Schembri Infrastructure Ltd for failing to pay their employee, Boiken Cela, €17,051 in wages, statutory entitlements and allowances.
The original judgement was delivered by the Magistrates Court in its criminal judicature, on 23 July 2025. The directors had appealed the judgement on several grounds.
The appellants contended that the prosecution had failed to produce the best evidence to prove they were directors of the company. They argued that such proof should have consisted of the company’s Memorandum and Articles of Association and its annual returns, and the burden of producing this evidence lay with the prosecution. The Appeals Court rejected this argument, holding that the testimony of the Registrar of Companies, confirming that they are directors, constituted sufficient proof.
The appellants also argued that the charges were time-barred due to the lapse of one year. They submitted that they had only been formally notified of the accusations on 6 May 2022, whereas the employee’s last day of work was on 11 May 2020. The court, however, noted that although the employee had been working in May 2020, his employment was not formally registered with JobsPlus at that time.
Following a workplace injury sustained on 11 May 2020, the employee was entitled to one year of injury leave. The court therefore determined that the relevant period of employment extended from 28 July 2020 (the date of registration with JobsPlus) to 10 May 2021. Consequently, the charges were not time-barred. The court further clarified that the prescriptive period begins to run from the date of the last violation, which, in this case, corresponded to the last day of employment.
The appellants also argued that the 18-month prescriptive period under the Civil Code, applicable to claims for payment of salaries, should apply, given that the court had ordered the payment of outstanding salaries. However, this argument was also rejected. The Appeals Court held that the order to pay wages arose from the criminal offence established under the Employment and Industrial Relations Act, and thus the prescriptive period under civil law was irrelevant.
The appellants also challenged the method used by the first court to calculate the amount due to the employee. They argued the agreed wage was €5 per hour, not €7 per hour as determined by the court, and that any compensation awarded should only cover the period following the registration of the employment contract with JobsPlus. The court dismissed these arguments, referring to an email clearly indicated that the employee’s wage was €7 per hour, without additional bonuses. The court further noted that even prior to registering the contract, the wage paid consisted in €7 an hour, hence constituting a tacit agreement.
The court emphasised that the obligation to apply for an employee’s work permit and register such employment with JobsPlus lay with the employer, not the employee. The court underscored that the employers had benefitted from the employee’s work prior to the issuance of the work permit and registration and thus could not invoke their own default as a defence.
The court also noted that it was perplexed at the fact that the appellants were using their own wrongdoings to try and obtain an advantage at the expense of the employee.
The Appeals Court noted how the appellants sought to evade their responsibilities by making reference to rights with no basis at law and instead sought to put the blame on their employee.
Accordingly, the Appeals Court confirmed the judgement in its entirety.
Authors
