Extending an executive's probation: Spasic v Bonnici Brothers

The Court of Appeal upheld an extension of an HR executive’s probation after finding that the parties had agreed to it before the employee signed the extension letter. The decision shows how the evidence surrounding a change to the contract can decide whether an employer may still rely on probation when it ends a senior appointment.

The disputed extension

Danijela Spasic was employed on an indefinite contract as an HR Executive. Her employment ended in September 2025, with her last day recorded as 9 September. The employer relied on an extension of probation, documented on 2 June 2025, which set an expiry date of 20 September 2025.

Spasic maintained that the extension had been imposed on her. She said that she had signed only to acknowledge that she had read and understood the letter, not to agree to the change. She also complained that she had been dismissed without a disciplinary process or an explanation, and claimed compensation for unfair dismissal.

The employer’s account was different. Its Head of HR testified that, before the original probation period expired, she had discussed two alternatives with Spasic: ending the employment or extending probation to allow a further assessment. According to that evidence, Spasic agreed to the extension during the meeting, and the letter followed.

The Industrial Tribunal accepted that there had been agreement and concluded that the employment had ended during probation. Its preliminary decision therefore brought the proceedings to an end.

Consent was a question of law the Court could examine

On appeal, Spasic challenged both the finding of valid consent and the resulting conclusion that the Tribunal could not hear her claim.

The employer argued that she was asking for a fresh assessment of facts and credibility, outside the scope of an appeal limited to points of law. The Court rejected that objection to the extent that the appeal concerned the legal validity of the extension.

Whether Spasic had validly consented affected her employment rights and the basis on which her employment could be ended. The Court therefore treated it as a legal issue which it could examine by reference to the evidence. That did not create a general right to reopen every factual assessment made by the Tribunal.

The agreement came before the signature

The Court did not decide the case by treating an acknowledgment of receipt as acceptance of new terms. It examined the meeting that preceded the letter, the evidence of agreement and the employee’s later conduct.

It found that the discussion had taken place while the original probation period was still running. The employer could then have ended the employment during probation, but offered an extension so that the parties could assess whether the employment should continue. The Court accepted that Spasic had agreed to that alternative.

In that context, signing the document formalised an arrangement already reached orally. Spasic had continued working during the extension, and her evidence had not displaced the account of the earlier agreement. The Court rejected her argument that there had been no consent.

Being offered a choice between termination and an extension did not, on the evidence in this case, invalidate the agreement. The reasoning should be read with that finding in mind: it does not establish that an employee’s signature, silence or continued attendance always proves agreement to a change in terms.

The effect on the dismissal claim

Having upheld the extension, the Court found that the employment had ended during a valid probation period. It confirmed that the Tribunal had been right not to proceed further with the claim, dismissed the appeal and ordered Spasic to bear the costs of the appeal.

The judgment did not fix any compensation for unfair dismissal or examine the substantive reasons for the dismissal. The probation issue was decisive. A separate time-limit defence raised by the employer was not the basis of the appeal ruling.

Significance for executive appointments and exits

For a senior appointment, the probation clause and any later variation can materially affect each side’s position when the relationship ends. This case makes the discussion before a variation particularly important. A letter recording an extension can become contentious if its wording reads as an acknowledgment of information while the employer relies on it as evidence of agreement.

The statutory framework matters too. Article 36 of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act sets a general six-month probationary period, twelve months for technical, executive, administrative or managerial employees paid at least twice the national minimum wage, and allows the parties to agree a shorter period. The Tribunal’s decision referred expressly to Spasic’s managerial position and to pay above the relevant threshold. The appeal dealt mainly with consent to the extension, and it is not authority for extending probation beyond the statutory regime.

In negotiating an early executive exit, the practical questions are therefore both the lawful probation period and the evidence of any agreed change. The appointment agreement, the timing and substance of the discussion, and the written record that followed should be read together before either side assumes that probation governs the departure. That is part of an exit review, and of an incoming executive review before the contract is signed.

Probation is also not an absence of all obligations. Article 36 separately requires one week’s notice once the employee has been employed for more than a month. The judgment does not decide that probation displaces protection against discrimination or every other possible employment claim.

For an employer, the lesson is to record an extension as what it is: an agreed change, discussed while the original period is still running and confirmed in writing in words that show acceptance, not only receipt.

If your appointment has been ended during probation, or you have been asked to agree an extension, see notice and exit terms. For how probation fits among the ways employment ends, see the guide on redundancy or dismissal in Malta. To discuss a specific situation, send a confidential enquiry.

Related: Probationary period · Incoming executive review · Exit review