The case kicked off after a patient filed multiple complaints with authorities after a surgical swab was discovered inside her uterus following a caesarean section
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a defamation appeal filed by consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist Karl Cutajar, confirming an earlier ruling that statements made about him by a former patient were not defamatory under Maltese law.
The judgment was delivered on 4 February 2026 following an appeal from a decision of the Court of Magistrates dated 10 March 2025Â
The case arose after a caesarean section carried out at Gozo General Hospital in January 2021, during which the patient, Yanika Barbara Sant gave birth. Three days after the procedure, she required emergency surgery after a surgical swab was discovered inside her uterus. The incident led to significant medical complications and psychological distress.
Sant subsequently filed multiple complaints with authorities, including the Police, the Medical Council, the Ministry for Health, and the Information and Data Protection Commissioner (IDPC). These complaints alleged negligence during the operation and raised concerns over the alleged unauthorised access to her medical and psychiatric records by Cutajar.
In June 2021, Sant sent an email to senior officials within the Ministry for Health requesting an investigation into how Cutajar had obtained access to her medical file. Later that year, she lodged a formal complaint with the IDPC and submitted further written representations in support of that complaint.
Cutajar initiated libel proceedings, arguing that statements contained in the email to ministry officials, the IDPC complaint, and subsequent submissions were false, malicious, and damaging to his professional reputation.
The Court of Magistrates rejected his claim, concluding that none of the impugned statements met the legal threshold for defamation. Cutajar appealed that decision.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, finding that although some of the statements were capable of carrying a defamatory meaning, they did not give rise to an actionable claim.
The court held that the communications made to the IDPC were protected by absolute privilege, as they formed part of formal proceedings. As a result, no action for defamation could arise from those statements, regardless of their content or intent.
With respect to the email sent to officials within the Ministry for Health, the court ruled that it was made in the exercise of Sant’s legal right to seek an investigation into matters directly affecting her personal data and medical privacy. The communication was therefore considered privileged and justified by a legitimate interest.
The court also ruled that under the Media and Defamation Act, a claimant must prove that a statement caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to reputation. It concluded that Cutajar had failed to meet this threshold.
The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, with costs shouldered by Cutajar.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a defamation appeal filed by consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist Karl Cutajar, confirming an earlier ruling that statements made about him by a former patient were not defamatory under Maltese law.
The judgment was delivered on 4 February 2026 following an appeal from a decision of the Court of Magistrates dated 10 March 2025Â
The case arose after a caesarean section carried out at Gozo General Hospital in January 2021, during which the patient, Yanika Barbara Sant gave birth. Three days after the procedure, she required emergency surgery after a surgical swab was discovered inside her uterus. The incident led to significant medical complications and psychological distress.
Sant subsequently filed multiple complaints with authorities, including the Police, the Medical Council, the Ministry for Health, and the Information and Data Protection Commissioner (IDPC). These complaints alleged negligence during the operation and raised concerns over the alleged unauthorised access to her medical and psychiatric records by Cutajar.
In June 2021, Sant sent an email to senior officials within the Ministry for Health requesting an investigation into how Cutajar had obtained access to her medical file. Later that year, she lodged a formal complaint with the IDPC and submitted further written representations in support of that complaint.
Cutajar initiated libel proceedings, arguing that statements contained in the email to ministry officials, the IDPC complaint, and subsequent submissions were false, malicious, and damaging to his professional reputation.
The Court of Magistrates rejected his claim, concluding that none of the impugned statements met the legal threshold for defamation. Cutajar appealed that decision.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, finding that although some of the statements were capable of carrying a defamatory meaning, they did not give rise to an actionable claim.
The court held that the communications made to the IDPC were protected by absolute privilege, as they formed part of formal proceedings. As a result, no action for defamation could arise from those statements, regardless of their content or intent.
With respect to the email sent to officials within the Ministry for Health, the court ruled that it was made in the exercise of Sant’s legal right to seek an investigation into matters directly affecting her personal data and medical privacy. The communication was therefore considered privileged and justified by a legitimate interest.
The court also ruled that under the Media and Defamation Act, a claimant must prove that a statement caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to reputation. It concluded that Cutajar had failed to meet this threshold.
The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, with costs shouldered by Cutajar.