The role of an estate agent is characterized by the promotion and pro-active involvement in the sale of a property on behalf of a party, normally the vendor. Fees due to the estate agent are normally established at a percentage of the property price and indicated specifically in an Agency Agreement between seller and the agent. Preferably, the agency fees are also indicated in the Promise of Sale.
The issue frequently arises when an agent, for any reason, fails to specifically insert his/her involvement in the promise of sale or, evenmoreso, fails to sign an agency agreement with the seller. Circumstances may arise where the agent actively involves himself or herself in the promotion, advertisement, negotiation of a property, secures a sale , which is eventually successfully concluded. However, the fees due to the agent’s professional services are not documented, hence giving rise to difficulties in enforcing rights for fees due.
A further issue which arises relates to the prescriptive period applicable to the claim for recovery of compensation for services rendered. Claimants for amounts due as compensation for services rendered often apply the prescriptive period dictated by Article 2156(f) of the Civil Code, which imposes a five year prescriptive period for “actions for the payment of any other debt arising from commercial transactions or other causes, unless such debt is, under this or any other law, barred by the lapse of a shorter period or unless it results from a public deed.”
The matter was clarified in a recent judgment delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court on 25 September 2026 in the names Kevin Callus, in the exercise of a business known as Key Property Estate’ v. Joseph and Isabelle spouses Dimech and Werner-Stephen and Veronica spouses Galea” , The decision of the Court was based on the preliminary plea of prescription raised by defendants and hence the Court’s decision was limited to determining the applicable prescription to the Claim of plaintiff, which was, in Plaintiff’s Claim, specifically couched as ‘agency fees or compensation for services rendered’ in connection with a sale of property concluded between defendants, whereby Defendants Dimech sold their immovable property to defendants Galea. Defendants argued inter alia that although the claim was drafted as ‘agency fees or services rendered’, the prescriptive period should be that applicable to agency fees, that is to say eighteen months. In view of the fact that the final deed of sale was published on 24 October 2022, the period for filing a claim elapsed after 25 April 2024. The Court noted that Plaintiffs had not brought evidence of judicial letters allegedly filed on 3 June 2024, which in any case, would have been tardive, and the claim was filed on 19 June 2024.
The Court quoted earlier judgments which in turn, explained that the right for compensation for services rendered in the ambit of property, was originally intended to do justice with an agent in cases where agency fees were not payable in full or not due at all and is therefore intended to compensate a person for services rendered in connection with sale even where the latter is not concluded. It would therefore be unreasonable to apply different prescriptive periods.
Whilst quoting extensive jurisprudence on the matter, the Court concluded that any claim for ‘services rendered’ in connection with the sale of a property, attracted the same prescriptive period of eighteen (18) months and therefore, Plaintiff’s action was time-barred.
FFF Legal represented two of the defendants in this case.
The information provided in this Insight does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice. All information, content, and materials available are for general informational purposes only. This Insight may not constitute the most up-to-date legal information and you are advised to seek updated advice.
