WH Partners

A recent judgment of the Maltese Civil Court, First Hall, has clarified the extent of the Industrial Tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction, confirming that claims arising from alleged employment misclassification fall within the competence of the Industrial Tribunal even where the relief sought includes compensation for (allegedly) unpaid social security contributions. In a partial judgment delivered on 5 November 2026, in Alex Frederic Bert vs First2Resource Limited et (Application No. 1358/2024DC), the Civil Court, First Hall, presided over by Madam Justice Doreen Clarke, addressed this important jurisdictional question. Background to the dispute The proceedings were instituted by an airline pilot who had been engaged under contractual arrangements describing him as an independent contractor. The claimant maintained that, notwithstanding the contractual designation, the actual circumstances of his engagement meant that he should have been classified as an employee. He argued that, as a consequence of his alleged misclassification, the defendant companies had failed to pay the social security contributions which would have been payable had he been correctly recognised as an employee. The claimant accordingly sought three principal remedies: a declaration that he had been an employee, a declaration that the defendants had failed to pay the applicable social security contributions, and an order requiring the defendants to pay the same. The defendants raised several preliminary defenses, including that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae, arguing that the dispute fell within the exclusive competence of the Industrial Tribunal. The Court’s decision The Court upheld the preliminary defense, and concluded that the Industrial Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the claim. In reaching its conclusion, the Court considered Article 75(1)(c) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Chapter 452 of the Laws of Malta), together with Regulation 12(1) of the Employment Status National Standard Order (Subsidiary Legislation 452.108). The Court observed that the statutory framework expressly empowers the Industrial Tribunal to determine complaints concerning breaches of rights arising under the Employment Status National Standard Order and to make appropriate remedial orders, including orders for compensation. The Court held that this jurisdiction was not limited to determining whether an individual was correctly classified as an employee. It also extended to consequential claims for unpaid social security contributions. The Court expressly rejected the argument that the Industrial Tribunal lacked the power to order payment of contributions owed to governmental authorities. It reasoned that the Tribunal’s broad remedial powers could encompass orders requiring the defendants to pay outstanding contributions to the competent authorities or, alternatively, to compensate the worker in respect of contributions already paid or which the worker would have to pay. Accordingly, the fact that the claim concerned statutory social security contributions, rather than a conventional claim for unfair dismissal or employment-related compensation, did not remove it from the Industrial Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as the determination of the claim first required the claimant to be classified as an employee, or otherwise, in terms of the Employment Status National Standard Order. The Court ordered the proceedings to be transferred to the Industrial Tribunal pursuant to Article 741(b) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure. Why the judgment matters The decision is significant because it confirms that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal must be determined by reference to the statutory framework governing the rights asserted, rather than simply by the form or monetary nature of the remedy requested. Where a dispute concerns an alleged employment relationship and rights arising under the Employment Status National Standard Order, the Industrial Tribunal may have exclusive jurisdiction over both the determination of employment status and the consequential financial remedies. This is particularly relevant to businesses engaging individuals as self-employed contractors, consultants or other independent service providers. Such arrangements may give rise to disputes concerning employment status, statutory contributions and other employment-related entitlements, notwithstanding the contractual terminology adopted by the parties. The judgment also demonstrates that the Industrial Tribunal’s jurisdiction is not necessarily confined to traditional employment remedies. Its statutory powers may extend to consequential financial claims involving obligations ordinarily associated with other areas of law. The judgment was confined to jurisdiction. The Court did not determine whether the claimant was in fact an employee, whether contributions were outstanding, or whether the claims were time-barred. Those questions remain for determination by the Industrial Tribunal. Adrian Mallia and Kirstin Abela Caruana assisted one of the defendants.

Authors: Donna Bugelli, Katarina Darmanin - WH Partners EU lawmakers are coming for the attention economy, and online gambling sits squarely in its path. The European Commission is expected to table the Digital Fairness Act (the “DFA”) in the fourth quarter of 2026, with November reportedly the target. It takes aim at dark patterns, addictive design, unfair personalisation, misleading influencer marketing and opaque pricing across digital services generally.  Gambling is not the named target. But few sectors have as much riding on the outcome. The industry is built on engagement, personalisation and the careful design of the player experience. The European Parliament has already identified online gambling as a priority area for consideration under the DFA. While the DFA would apply across the EU, it is likely to be particularly relevant for Malta, which remains one of Europe’s leading hubs for licensed online gambling operators. Why  the Digital Fairness Act Matters for Online Gambling There is no sector-specific EU gambling law. Member States regulate their own markets, subject to the EU’s fundamental freedoms.  Operators are still bound by horizontal consumer protection rules, chief among them the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (“UCPD”). The UCPD can already catch a trader that exploits a known vulnerability, such as poor impulse control or a history of problem gambling, through addictive interface design, relentless prompts or sensory cues that encourage further spending. What the UCPD struggles to reach is the harder-to-quantify fallout: hours lost, the psychological toll, and the slow erosion of a player’s sense of control. That is exactly the gap the DFA is meant to close. And because the Commission has signalled it will not single out particular sectors, gambling operators may find themselves assessed against broad fairness-based digital consumer protection standards rather than rules written with gambling-specific safeguards in mind. The Shift from Compliance to Fairness Addictive design sits at the top of the DFA’s expected agenda. Reward loops, loot boxes and features that reward staying and penalise leaving all lean on behavioural biases. In gambling, every extra minute of engagement can translate directly into further spend. Dark patterns compound the problem.  The Commission’s 2022 study of popular websites and apps flagged “nagging” on gambling platforms, including pop-ups at every login inviting a deposit. Other research has documented accounts that are needlessly hard to close. The DFA could change the lens on deposit flows, continued-play prompts and account closure, testing them not only against responsible gambling standards but against a broader question:  Is the experience fair to the consumer? Personalised Gambling Offers and the Use of Player Data Using player data to tailor offers is not inherently wrong. It becomes problematic when knowledge of a player’s vulnerabilities is turned into leverage. Few industries generate richer behavioural data than online gambling, and investigations, including Cracked Labs’ work for Clean Up Gambling, describe operators profiling players by addiction-related signals and targeting lapsed customers to draw them back. Such practices become especially difficult to justify when a player is showing signs of financial distress or trying to quit. The DFA would not replace data protection law; it would sit alongside it.  The GDPR asks whether data may lawfully be processed.  The DFA would ask the harder question: even where processing is lawful, is it fair? Among the ideas in the policy debate is an explicit right for consumers to opt for non-personalised offers. Influencers, Affiliates and the Protection of Minors Gambling is age-restricted, yet it is routinely promoted through channels minors use every day, including social media, affiliate networks and influencer marketing, where commercial content is increasingly difficult to distinguish from ordinary content.   Parliamentary Pressure In November 2025, the European Parliament voted 483 to 82 for a non-binding resolution urging that targeted advertising, influencer marketing, addictive design, loot boxes and dark patterns aimed at minors fall under the DFA’s scope. What Children Are Telling Policymakers In July 2026, the Commission published a survey of almost 5,000 children across the EU: 69% said influencers should only promote products that are safe and appropriate for them, and 72% favoured some form of age verification on social media.  The Kids Act Connection In September 2026, the Commission proposed the Kids Act, which targets design features that encourage compulsive use by minors and variable reward systems on social networks and video-sharing platforms. Taken together, these developments point towards a broader regulatory trend. For operators, the DFA’s reach could extend beyond the content of an advert to how that content reaches its audience. This raises harder questions about affiliates, influencers and audience-targeting practices. The Bottom Line Nobody can say for certain what the DFA will require until the Commission publishes its proposal. But the direction of travel maps closely onto how gambling businesses are built, promoted and run.  Operators should therefore begin assessing not only whether their products satisfy existing compliance requirements, but also whether they would withstand scrutiny under a broader fairness standard. Before the text lands, operators should look beyond whether their products tick existing compliance boxes, and instead consider the overall player experience from the consumer’s perspective. The real significance of the DFA may lie less in new checkboxes and more in a changed standard of judgement: not whether the rules were followed, but whether the player was treated fairly.  The final text is still unwritten, but the direction is not in doubt. For online gambling, compliance and fairness are no longer the same question. Operators who treat player fairness as a genuine design principle, not an afterthought, will be best placed for whatever the DFA ultimately demands. They are also likely to be better positioned to earn the trust of increasingly informed consumers. For Malta, as a jurisdiction that hosts a significant number of EU-facing online gambling operators, the outcome of this debate will be particularly important. How the line between compliant and fair is ultimately drawn could have implications across the sector.