Malta Court of Appeal upholds First Court decision to reject recognition of US defamation award of $740 million, finding that such a high amount of damages for defamation was manifestly contrary to Malta’s public policy and internal public law
Malta’s Court Of Appeal has delivered a landmark judgement (14 October, 2025), declining the recognition of a United States court judgement to award an astronomical $740 million in damages for a defamation case.
The case concerns a Florida judgement from 2020 on defamation claims brought by Turkish billionaire Mehmet Tatlici, against his half-brother Ugur Tatlici.
Ugur Tatlici was represented by lawyers Dr Douglas Aquilina and Dr Mark Attard Montalto (Attard Montalto & Aquilina Advocates).
In this case, plaintiff Mehmet Tatlici requested the Maltese courts to recognise and enforce a judgement by the Florida courts, ordering defendant Ugur Tatlici to pay $740 million in defamation awards.
The First Hall of the Civil Court rejected the plaintiff’s request on 13 February 2025. The plaintiff appealed from that judgement.
Appeals Court case
The appeal concerned the refusal of the First Court to enforce a foreign judgement issued by an American court. The original proceedings took place in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in the State of Florida, during which a jury verdict led to an order condemning Ugor to pay Mehmet the sum of $740,000,000 (€659,932,000) for defamation damages.
In Malta, Mehmet Tatlici petitioned the courts to execute the Florida judgement so that he could proceed against Ugor Tatlici’s assets, who was the ultimate beneficial owner of the companies Mayna Limited and Contra Limited.
The First Court in Malta refused execution of the Florida judgement, chiefly citing the violation of Maltese public policy against SLAPPs, and due to the astronomical damages requested.
The most critical and successful argument was the fact that the $740,000,000 quantum of damages for defamation was contrary to the internal public law or public order of Malta, for which the First Court found such damages went against the basic principles of natural justice.
The Court of Appeal – comprising Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, and Judges Robert G. Mangion, and Grazio Mercieca – noted that the EU SLAPP Directive mentioned by the First Court, was not applicable to this case, as it was enacted later and the parties were not individuals falling under the directive’s protected categories, such as journalists or NGOs.
But the core issue was whether the $740 million award for defamation violated fundamental Maltese public policy.
The Appeals Court found that the appellant, Mehmet Tatlici, had failed seriously to prove that the astronomical sum represented ‘real damages’ as he claimed. It therefore agreed with the First Court that an award of US$740 million for moral damages due to defamation was manifestly contrary to Maltese public policy.
It confirmed the sentence of the First Court, ruling that the Florida judgement should not be executed in the Maltese jurisdiction.
The judges also agreed with the reasoning of the First Court that this kind of enormous pecuniary deterrence undermines the Maltese legal balance, and that the enforcement of such a judgement “would allow what the Maltese State does not want to enter from the door, through the window… otherwise any Maltese citizen could be exposed to the proceedings in the United States if it were a case of an opinion expressed online or on a website, and that by doing so a case would be brought against a Maltese person in the United States.”
The Court of Appeal reiterated that it normally recognises and enforces foreign judgements, subject to public policy and public order considerations. For awards for defamation, the Maltese legislative system attempts to strike a balance between the right of a person to protect their reputation and the right to freedom of expression.
It concluded that such a high amount of damages for defamation was manifestly contrary to Malta’s public policy and internal public law, as it threatens the very basis of freedom of expression and is disproportionate to what Maltese law permits in cases of defamation.
The plaintiff was represented by Dr Malcolm Mifsud and Dr John Refalo. The defendant was represented by Dr Douglas Aquilina and Dr Mark Attard Montalto.
As seen in
