However, Fortina said the expert analysis challenges the methodologies adopted by the NAO and shows that the €8.1 million it agreed to pay in 2019 was actually excessive when measured against established valuation principles, industry standards and realistic assumptions.

“We have privately owned this prime seafront property since the 1960s and have paid over and above the fair value for the waiver of conditions,” Fortina said.

“Our comprehensive review of the NAO report, with technical expert assistance, found numerous discrepancies in all three valuations. After adjusting for these flaws, it is evident that even before taking unto account the unrealistic sales price values assumed in the NAO valuation, the maximum fair value would at best range between €3.5 to €7.4 million.”

Fortina said they also tested this for fair value against the new legal framework regulating condition waivers, and found that the government bill today would have been €4.7 million – €3.4 million less than what they paid.

“If €4.7 million constitutes fair value under today’s transparent standards, why is €8.1 million in 2019 not considered excessive?” they questioned. “We paid significantly more than current fair value standards. Not only did we not benefit from an advantageous valuation, but we were significantly disadvantaged.”

Fortina Says NAO Got It Wrong

The group argued that the NAO’s assessment was marred by “material errors, methodological flaws, and internal inconsistencies” that led to inflated values.

They said that adopting 2019 prices instead of 2017, the year the application to life the restrictions was made, inflated the NAO valuations by €2.8 million and €3.2 million.

Moreover, they said that, contrary to standard practice and Lands Authority requirements, the architects’ and auditor’s valuations only deducted the ‘deemed air space value’ instead of the site’s ‘fair in-use market value’.

“The magnitude of this gross deficiency can be better appreciated when one considers that the Auditor effectively understated the fair hotel value by €13.4 million since the deduction should have been based on their computed value of €143,000 per hotel room.”

“By applying ‘airspace value’ instead of actual hotel value, the architects underestimated the hotel value deduction by €5.477 million against its own deemed hotel room values.”

Fortina also argued that the NAO had left out sales tax deductions which would have reduced the figure by another €6.084 million at 2019 prices.

It went on to argue that neither the NAO nor the Auditor Valuation followed the requirements of the Government Lands Act.

Fortina said it carried out its own separate valuation under Legal Notice 196 of 2024 and LN 75 of 2025, rules intended to standardise and bring transparency to such waivers.

“Under the current 2025 legislative framework, calculations by a leading architectural firm demonstrate Fortina would pay a maximum of €4.7 million under today’s valuation rules, €3.4 million less than the amount agreed,” the statement read.

“Fortina does not contend that these rules, that came into force in 2024, ought to have been applied but is simply testing and benchmarking valuations against these rules with a view to shed light of what constitutes fair value.”

The group has submitted its analysis to the parliamentary committee reviewing the NAO’s findings, urging MPs to take its technical evidence into account.

What do you make of this?