Category: Retirement

The Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Cyprus has exclusive jurisdiction to act as Admiralty Court. By virtue of Sections 19(a) and 29(2)(a) of the Courts of Justice Law of 1960 (Law 14/60), the Admiralty Court is vested with and exercises the same powers and jurisdiction as those vested in or exercised by the High Court of Justice in England in its Admiralty Jurisdiction on the day immediately preceding the
day of Independence. In the exercise of such jurisdiction it applies the Law as applied in England on the day in question subject to the overriding provisions of the Constitution and save insofar as another provision is made by any Law of the Republic.

The Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Cyprus has exclusive jurisdiction to act as Admiralty Court. By virtue of Sections 19(a) and 29(2)(a) of the Courts of Justice Law of 1960 (Law 14/60), the Admiralty Court is vested with and exercises the same powers and jurisdiction as those vested in or exercised by the High Court of Justice in England in its Admiralty Jurisdiction on the day immediately preceding the day of Independence. In the exercise of such jurisdiction it applies the Law as applied in England on the day in question subject to the overriding provisions of the Constitution and save insofar as another provision is made by any Law of the Republic.

Consequently, the English Administration of Justice Act of 1956 (‘AJA 1956’) Part I defines the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Court. In particular, Section 1(1) of AJA 1956 sets out the questions or claims which are heard and determined by the Admiralty Court. Further, the Cyprus Admiralty Jurisdiction Order 1893 (‘the Rules’) regulates the procedure before the Court. The Admiralty jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked both by an action in rem and by an action in personam. All admiralty actions are instituted by the issue of a writ of summons and it is always possible to combine an action in rem with an action in personam in the same writ.

Arrest of vessel and jurisdiction in rem

The arrest of a ship is only possible in the case of an action in rem. Therefore, the filing of an action in rem is a prerequisite for such an arrest. Once a claim falls within the scope of Section 1(1), then Section 3 of AJA 1956 automatically comes into operation to determine whether that claim can be brought by an action in rem. An action in rem is an action against the vessel (the res) and the writ of summons must be served on the vessel herself. As a result, the physical presence of the vessel within the jurisdictional waters of Cyprus is necessary so that the Admiralty Court can assume jurisdiction in rem.

In El Fath Co v. E.D.T. Shipping Ltd (1992) 1 CLR 1255, the Supreme Court held that the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a ship as well as the issue of a writ of summons of an action in rem is possible even when the ship is found outside the jurisdiction of the Court. These, however, remain inactive until the ship comes within its jurisdiction, thereby enabling the service of the writ on her. This is because the jurisdiction in rem of the Court is founded upon the service of the writ on the res or upon its arrest and not at the time when these are issued by the Court (Altobeiqui v. M/V Nada G. (1985) 1 CLR 543; Cyprus Bureau of Shipping Ltd v. Farner Shipping Co. Ltd (1999) 1 CLR 478).

The Arrest Proceedings

An application for the arrest of a vessel can be filed on or at any time after the filing of an action in rem. The proceedings for the arrest are regulated by Rules 50-59. The Court has a wide discretion to order the arrest of the vessel if it is satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled to the arrest. The Plaintiff who wishes to arrest the Defendant ship must file an ex-parteapplication which must be supported by an affidavit.
The affidavit must state the nature of the claim, and that the aid of the Court is required since the claim remains unsatisfied. At this stage it is not necessary for the Court to go into the merits of the action and decide whether the Plaintiff’s factual or legal contentions are right or wrong. Rule 50 gives an absolute right for the arrest of property once the Court is satisfied that there are issues that have to be tried between the Parties; it suffices to show that the Plaintiff has a right to have those issues tried. Generally, the Plaintiff must indicate that there is a question to be tried at the hearing – the term includes a requirement to indicate the facts which trigger the in rem jurisdiction of the Court – and that on the facts there is a probability that the Plaintiff is entitled to relief (Breidi and Another v. The Ship Gloriana and Others (1982) 1 CLR 1; El Fath Co v. E.D.T. Shipping Ltd (1992) 1 CLR 1255; Rigas v. The Ship Baalbeck (1973) 1 CLR 159; Cypamar Maritime Agencies v. The Ship Tiger (2001) 1 CLR 2159). In an action for wages, in an action for necessities, or for building, equipping or repairing any vessel, as well as in an action for bottomry, additional information must also be included in the affidavit as per Rules 52 and 53.

Full and frank disclosure

Since the application is made ex-parte the Plaintiff is required to make full and frank disclosure of all the material facts of the case which may influence the judgment of the Court on whether the arrest of the ship is justified under the circumstances. In the case of Caspi Shipping Limited v. The Ship “Sapphire Seas” (No. 2) (1997) 1 CLR 833, the Supreme Court clarified that simple compliance with the Rules does not release the person who applies ex-parte from the obligation to disclose all the relevant information which would assist the Court to reach the right conclusion. However, it seems unnecessary for such disclosure to extend to further facts which are irrelevant to the request for the arrest (Abdul Hamid Borgol and Co. v. The Ship Akak Progress (1985) 1 CLR 672; Cypamar Maritime Agencies v. The Ship Tiger (2001) 1 CLR 2159).

Security by the plaintiff

Once the Court is satisfied that the necessary requirements for the arrest of the ship are met, it will then require the Plaintiff to:
Furnish a security bond in respect of damages that the Defendant vessel may suffer should the arrest be proved to be wrongful (Rule 205). Such security is usually provided by way of a Cyprus bank guarantee. By virtue of Rule 211, the Court can afterwards vary or rescind the terms regarding the security, as the circumstances may require (Grade One Shipping Ltd, owners of the Cyprus ship “Crios II” (No 1) v. The cargo on board the ship “Crios II” (1976) 1 CLR 323).

Lodge a deposit for the expenses which may be incurred by the marshal in connection with the custody and supervision of the vessel while under arrest, as well as any other amount of money required by the Registrar for the expenses of the arrest.

Failure to comply with the above requirements will automatically result in the release of the vessel. Once the warrant of arrest is issued it shall be served by the marshal or his officer in the manner prescribed by the Rules for the service of a writ of summons in an action in rem, and thereupon the property shall be deemed to be arrested. The order for the arrest must also state the exact amount of security that the Defendant may provide for the release of the vessel.

In aid of foreign proceedings

In Nationwide Shipping Inc. v. The Ship “Athena” (2012) 1 CLR 2343, the Supreme Court held that the Admiralty Court does not have jurisdiction, under the International Commercial Arbitration Law (Law 101/87), to issue a warrant of arrest of a ship in aid or in support of an international arbitration. In that case the warrant of arrest was requested in support of arbitration proceedings in London. The Court indicated that such order could not remain in force, because the purpose of the arrest is to provide security in respect of the action in rem. Nevertheless, it seems that an arbitration clause does not in itself preclude a Plaintiff from arresting the ship. In National Line of Cyprus S.A. v. The Ship “Sunset” (1986) 1 CLR 393, it was held that an arbitration clause in a contract does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court but it merely gives the right to any other Party to such proceedings to apply for a stay of proceedings and reference of such dispute to arbitration.

In Achelec Electronics Ltd v. Deutsche Seereederei (1992) 1 CLR 442, it was stated that although a foreign jurisdiction clause does not deprive the Cypriot Courts of their jurisdiction, strong reasons must be presented as to why such clause should be disregarded. The existence of an arbitration or a foreign jurisdiction clause must in any case be expressly disclosed when applying ex-parte for the arrest; such information is considered as relevant for establishing the in rem jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, hence necessary for the Court to reach the right conclusion regarding the arrest. Non-disclosure of such a clause will result in the discharge of the order and the release of the vessel (Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v. The Ship “Blue Sky” (2000) 1 CLR 139; Vector Onega AG v. The Ship M/V Girvas (1998) 1 CLR 354; Caspi Shipping Limited v. The Ship “Sapphire Seas” (No. 2) (1997) 1 CLR 833).

In aid of execution
It has been held that it is possible to arrest a ship, which is already under arrest in other proceedings, for the purpose of aiding the execution of a judgement (Perrin v. The Ship “R.F. Potamac” (1993) 1 CLR 145). The same is possible in the case of a Mareva injunction. In Linmare Shipping Co. Ltd v. Boustani (1981) 1 CLR 386, the Admiralty Court issued a Marevainjunction for the freezing of assets within the jurisdiction. After the issuance of the judgement in favour of the Plaintiffs, the Court ordered that the Mareva injunction should remain in force in aid of execution.

Caveat

Any person desiring to prevent the arrest of any property or the release of any property under arrest or the payment of any moneys out of Court may cause a caveat to this end (Rules 65-73).

Release of the Vessel under Arrest

The release proceedings are regulated by Rules 60-64. Any party may apply to the Court for the release of any property arrested and the Court or Judge may, by order, direct the release of such property upon such terms as to security or as payment of any costs of appraisement or removal or inspection or otherwise as the Court shall see fit.

Requirements for the release
An order of release may be issued on an application, without notice to any other Party if there is no caveat entered against the release of the property, and:
Upon proof of payment to the Court of the amount claimed, or of the appraised value of the property arrested, or, where cargo is arrested for freight only, of the amount of the freight verified by affidavit;
On the application of the party at whose instance the property has been arrested;

On a consent in writing being filed signed by the party at whose instance the property has been arrested;
On discontinuance or dismissal of the action in which the property has been arrested.
Although there seems to be no general rule for the calculation of the amount of security, it is sufficient that this amount directly relates with the possible amount which may be awarded in favour of the Plaintiff in case of success of the action in rem (The Ship M/V “Bay Star” v. Mario Cirino Pomicino Spa (1998) 1 CLR 471). The order of release shall be served on the marshal by the Party at whose instance it has been obtained. On service of the order of release and on payment to the marshal of all fees due to and charges incurred by him in respect of the arrest and custody of the property, the property shall be at once released from arrest.
The proceedings

The proper procedural measure for the release of a vessel is, according to Rule 60, the filing of a separate application (“motion”). In The Ship “Gloriana” v. Breidi and another (1982) 1 CLR 409, however, the Supreme Court held that a notice of opposition accompanied with a sworn affidavit can be considered as “motion” within the concept of the relevant Rule. Therefore, the filing of a notice of opposition instead of the filing of a separate application, is to be treated merely as an irregularity and not as a nullity (see also Mario Cirino Pomicino Spa v. The Ship “Bay Star” (1997) 1 CLR 1454).

The provision of adequate bail or security operates so as to substitute the arrested vessel. As a result, the Plaintiff is not entitled to arrest the vessel for a second time in relation to the same cause of action (Hadjievangelou (No. 2) v. Dorami Marine Ltd and Others (1978) 1 CLR 555). It has been decided that the discretion of the Court under Rule 60 must be exercised judicially by reference to the principle of law underlying the power to direct arrest, on the one hand, and the realities of the case on the other (Singh v. F/B Alisur Blanco (1984) 1 CLR 532). A Party claiming the release of the vessel or the discharge of the security provided for the release of the vessel can only succeed if he can prove that the Plaintiff’s claim is frivolous or vexatious (Breidi and Another v. The Ship Gloriana and Others (1982) 1 CLR 1).

Judicial Sale of Vessel

Under Rule 74 the Court has inter alia the power, either before (pendente lite) or after final judgement, by its order to appoint the marshal of the Court or any other person to appraise the ship under arrest and to sell the ship with or without appraisal. An order for the auction of a vessel subject to appraisement imports a limitation to the power of the marshal to sell below the appraised value. The Court, however, has discretion to authorize the sale below the appraised value and in exercising such discretion the Court should consider the likelihood of the ship being sold at a price equivalent or higher than the appraised value (Greyhound Shipping Corporation v. The Ship “Platon Ch.” (1986) 1 CLR 541).

Typical grounds for a sale pendente lite are that the ship is costing a disproportionate amount in daily expenses, or that she is deteriorating owing to being under arrest for a long period, or that the cargo is perishable (Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v. The Ship “Maria” (1983) 1 CLR 773; Vector Onega AG v. The Ship M/V “Girvas” (1998) 1 CLR 1411). Depending on the order of the Court a vessel will be sold by public auction. Once the sale is completed the res is converted into the proceeds of its sale which are deposited with the Court to satisfy the various claims.

It is important to note that the sale of the ship does not deprive the Court of its jurisdiction. Once the Court has assumed jurisdiction in the matter and such jurisdiction has never been contested until the commencement of the hearing, the Court cannot be deprived of its jurisdiction. Even after the sale of the ship any subsequent proceedings may be commenced in rem against such proceeds as if they were the property in question (Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v. The Ship “Maria” (1985) 1 CLR 495).
Other Injunctions Available to the Plaintiff

The Admiralty Court has the power to issue interim injunctions, for example Marevainjunctions, by virtue of Section 32 of Law 14/60. Since the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Seamark Consultancy Services Ltd v. Joseph P. Lasala and Others (2007) 1 CLR 162, the jurisdiction of the Court in issuing freezing orders has been extended to cover assets outside the jurisdiction. A Mareva injunction, however, like any other injunction, operates in personam against the Defendant. It does not in itself assume jurisdiction as in the case of an admiralty action in rem.

Moreover, Section 30 of the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships, Sales and Mortgages) Law (Law 45/63), provides that the Supreme Court may, on the application of any interested person and if the Court thinks fit, make an order prohibiting, for a specified time, any dealing with the ship or any shares therein.
The content of this article intends to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Special advice should be sought on your specific circumstances. For further information, please contact us.

There are cases in which the Cyprus Courts in civil proceedings may order the plaintiff in an action to provide money for the security of the defendant’s costs that may be incurred after the trial has ended.
The possibility of issuing a decree granting security for costs is regulated by Order 60 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The issue of such an order is at the discretion of the Court,
which must be satisfied that there is reasonable concern that, if the claim fails, the plaintiff will not pay the defendant’s costs.

Accordingly, with Order 60 and case law, the following conditions must be met in order to obtain the security for costs.

The primary and necessary condition is that the plaintiff’s usual residence is outside Cyprus or of a Member State of the European Union. According to the Annual Practice of 1958, the burden is on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff resides in a country that is outside of the jurisdiction and not simply to show that he is not usually resident in the country where the court proceedings were conducted.

The next condition and factor to be taken into account by the Cypriot Courts in the exercise of its discretion is that the plaintiff does not own any property, in particular immovable property, in Cyprus. On the part of the plaintiff, any possible possession of immovable property located within the Republic of Cyprus may militate against the provision of security of expenses, provided that such property is available for execution.

Another important factor to be taken into consideration is the strength of the plaintiff’s claim. The stronger the plaintiff’s claim the less likely it is that the defendant will secure an order for security of costs. The rationale behind this condition is that if the plaintiff has a good case and the defense appears not to have such a strong case, then it would be contrary to the spirit of justice to order the payment of security for costs.

Also, the timing of the application is an additional element that may be taken into consideration. The court may decide to reject the application for reasons of delay (The Union of Agricultural Cooperatives of Seeds & Cereals v. Apak Agro Industries Ltd (1992) 1 CLR 1170).

The plaintiff may challenge the defendant’s application for a security-for-costs order by filing an objection setting out the grounds of such objection. He may for example rely on the strength of his claim or provide evidence of his ability to pay any costs award that maybe issued against him The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show that he is able to cover any such costs award. The rationale behind this lies in the fact that the defendant is not in a position to know the details of the plaintiff’s financial situation.

An application for security of costs may also be filed at the appeal stage regarding the costs to be incurred by the appeal. The relevant procedure is governed by Order 35, Regulation 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The same principles apply as those described above concerning applications for security of costs before the Courts of first instance.

When a security for costs order is used the security is usually paid in Court or deposited in the form of a bank guarantee by any bank that carries out business in Cyprus, to the satisfaction of the Registrar. The amount of the security is at the discretion of the Court.

The content of this article is a general description of the subject. Specialized legal services and advice are provided in each case. For further information, please contact.

Marina Hadjisoteriou and Charilaos Chrysanthou, Associates of the firm, have been promoted to Senior Associates as from 1st January 2017.
Marina is the head of the Limassol litigation department while Charilaos is based in the Nicosia office.
Both have extensive experience in civil litigation matters of a corporate and commercial nature. Please see under the section ‘People’ for more details regarding Marina and Charilaos.

The law firm of Michael Kyprianou & Co. LLC announces the commencement of its operations in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, with the establishment of Michael Kyprianou (Middle East) DMCC.
Michael Kyprianou (Middle East) DMCC is registered and licensed in accordance with the regulations of the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre authority. It has also been licensed by the Ras Al Khaimah International Corporate Centre to act as Registered Agent.
The Dubai office provides, inter alia, the following services:
General company incorporation services. This includes the registration and licensing of onshore companies (by any one of the many free zones located within the United Arab Emirates), branches, representative offices and offshore companies registered by RAK ICC;
Provision of general administrative services that include professional directors, shareholders, secretary, registered office and other virtual office services;
The opening of corporate and personal bank accounts
Assisting in the issuance of residence permits.

More information about the services that we provide in Dubai can be found at www.kyprianou.ae
Our address is at Unit No. 2928, DMCC Business Centre, Level No.1, Jewellery & Gemplex 3, Dubai, UAE.
The Dubai Office is headed by Mr. Khamis Abulhawa who can be contacted at khamis@kyprianou.ae

Medical negligence is a specialized area which falls under the umbrella of general personal injury cases. Such cases are attributed great significance as they embrace the social norm of the importance of the provision of quality services in health care.

The protection of the human right to life and health care, the right to physical and mental integrity and safety and the right to dignified treatment in health care is afforded in
Cyprus pursuant to the Safeguarding and Protection of the Patients’ Rights Law of 2004, Law 1(I)/2005 and the Private Hospitals (Establishment and Operation Assessment) Law of 2001.

A patient who alleges medical malpractice shall prove four elements: a) that a duty of care was owed by the professional, b) that the duty was breached by the professional, c) that the patient suffered loss and damage and d) that the damage suffered was caused by the conduct of the professional.

As to the first element, it is rarely an issue in litigation as once a doctor agrees to offer treatment to a patient the duty arises, irrespectively of whether payment was made for the services offered by the professional. In this context, hospital authorities are liable for the malpractice of their employees or agents pursuant to their non-delegable duty of care, as the duty is not discharged simply by delegating its performance to someone else.

The degree of care required by law is proportional to the risk created. As the Courts have accepted, if a person holds himself out as possessing special skill and knowledge he owes a duty of using caution in providing treatment. The measure of the duty of care owed to the patient is “the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill” (Bolam v. Friern H.M.C. (1957) 1 W.L.R. 582).

The burden a litigant has in proving malpractice is that the said malpractice had a direct causal link with the loss and damage suffered by the patient. An error of practice of itself will not alone give rise to negligence. The issue is whether the error in question evidenced a failure of professional competence. Examples of professional malpractice derived by case law include not taking a full medical history from the patient, not paying attention to the complaints expressed by the patient, failing to take measures to further investigate the condition of a patient, failing to take into consideration that the patient did not respond to the treatment initially provided, failing to use available diagnostic means, misinterpreting the examination results of a patient etc.

Expert opinion is also required in proving medical negligence. The expert’s duty is to assist the Court understand the scientific criteria required for each condition and treatment so that the Court is able to reach its own conclusions on the disputed matters taking into consideration the expert’s assistance on the said matters. Thus litigants shall chose experts with an in-depth knowledge on their subject in order to provide the Court with subjective and justified evidence on the disputed matters.

Proof of damage may include both the physical effects of the malpractice as well as psychological effects on the patient.

It is noted that medical negligence cases shall be brought within 3 years from the date of accrual of the tortious event; claims brought after the said period will be dismissed.

The remedies awarded by the Courts in medical negligence cases are damages. Special damages are awarded for the actual economic loss suffered by the patient such as loss of earnings and the expenses incurred following the damage. General damages are awarded for the pain, suffering and emotional distress suffered. Legal interest on the damages is also awarded; the current legal interest awarded by the Cyprus Courts is set at 5,5% as of 15/10/2008 and at 4% as of 1/1/2015. Additionally, the winning party is awarded the legal costs of the proceedings, calculated on the basis of the scale of damages sought.

General damages have always attracted theoretical elaboration and criticism for the reason that pain, suffering and emotional distress cannot by their nature have a definite price. Quantification lies at the discretion of the Court, which takes each case on its own facts. Guidance is given by preceding case law, however the judge hearing the case retains the discretion to award the amount considered just under the specific circumstances of each case.

Courts take into consideration that the general damages awarded have to be “socially acceptable” (Paraskevaides Overseas Ltd v Christofis (1982) 1 CLR 789). Particularly, in cases of severe damage the Courts have accepted that any amount is “manifestly inadequate” (Mavropetri ν Louca (1995) 1 J.S.C. 66). Case law also suggests a steady increase in the amounts of general damages awarded, a trend that reflects greater sensitivity to human suffering, the agony of disability and mental anguish due to the marginalization from the usual human activities, thus affording significance to the quality of human life.

Cyprus Courts have not hesitated to award significant amounts in medical negligence cases. For instance, over the last years the Courts have awarded the sum of €200.000 for a failed surgical treatment of a compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra that infected the neurological system of the patient and the sum of €180.000 for a failed laparoscopic gallbladder surgery and improper diagnosis that caused neurological problems to the patient, kidney and liver failure and anemia, among others.

Our law firm has successfully represented various clients bringing medical negligence cases before the Cyprus Courts. In August 2014 a judgment of the District Court of Limassol was entered by which our client was awarded with the amount of €40.000,00 as general damages and €1.606,09 as special damages plus interest and legal costs for failed posterior cruciate ligament surgery that caused damage to the tibial and sensory nerves and paralysis of a muscle. Also, in December 2016 a judgment of the District Court of Limassol was entered by which our client was awarded with the amount of €225.000 as general damages, €209.492 for loss of future earnings and €33.689,45 as special damages plus interest and legal costs. The client was treated in a private clinic which had failed to diagnose that the patient suffered from acute myocardial infarction. The infarction was detected at a very late stage when a large percentage of the heart had already been necrotized. As a result, the client was held totally unfit for work and lost the opportunity to live a normal life.

Specialist advice shall be sought if a person considers that a medical negligence case might have arisen for the provision of professional advice on the merits of the potential case.

The content of this article intends to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought on each particular case. For any further information, please contact Ms. Constantina Zantira by email at: c.zantira@kyprianou.com.cy or by phone at: +357.25.36.36.85.

We are please to announce that Romanian Law Firm, Laurentiu, Laurentiu & Associates (LLA), is now a memebr of LexLegal Internationa Lawyers Network.

LLA prides itself on combining the highest global standards with local expertise. LLA’s clients range from major international corporations to smaller companies and private individuals, both in Romania and internationally. It has a reputation for passion and excellence and the confidence to think creatively, to take carefully calculated risks and to support new approaches in its work with the clients.LLA prides itself on combining the highest global standards with local expertise.

LLA’s clients range from major international corporations to smaller companies and private individuals, both in Romania and internationally. It has a reputation for passion and excellence and the confidence to think creatively, to take carefully calculated risks and to support new approaches in its work with the clients.LLA prides itself on combining the highest global standards with local expertise.

LLA’s clients range from major international corporations to smaller companies and private individuals, both in Romania and internationally. It has a reputation for passion and excellence and the confidence to think creatively, to take carefully calculated risks and to support new approaches in its work with the clients.L
LexLegal is looking forward to working with the firm.

Arbitration is an alternative method of resolving disputes outside the traditional method of courts. In this case, the parties shall, by mutual agreement, choose and submit their disputes, and gives discretionary powers to an impartial person specializing in the subject matter of the dispute to be resolved. The parties also have the opportunity to choose the place and language of the arbitration procedure and the law applicable to the dispute. The Arbitral Tribunal’s decisions are final, binding and enforceable both internally
and abroad, as in court rulings.
In order to trigger the start of proceedings of the Arbitral Tribunal, the parties must either have agreed in writing to refer any dispute directly to arbitration or, by agreement, to refer a dispute to the Arbitral Tribunal, in court proceedings that are already pending, before the Arbitral Tribunal Court of Justice. Companies often include in their international contracts a clause to refer to arbitration, so that if any dispute arises in relation to the agreement they are obliged to arbitrate instead of following a dispute settlement through the courts.
The advantages of Arbitration over the Court are that the settlement of the dispute with arbitration is usually quicker and less costly. In accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Court, the Arbitrator must finalize the proceedings and take a decision within nine months, which is an unlikely period through the national courts. Also, the procedural rules in Arbitration are flexible and can be adapted to the particular nature of each case and to the specific needs and wishes of the parties.
A further advantage of Arbitration is that it has a beneficial effect on the normal course of justice as it frees the courts from cases which can be resolved out of court. This certainly has a positive impact on the economy as it offers a rapid solution in situations where the financial aspects are complicated. In addition, the speed of dispute handling and confidentiality are of particular importance especially to businesses and, generally, to all the parties involved.
There is no restriction on the kind of litigation that the Arbitral Tribunal can resolve. In Cyprus, the Arbitration Procedure is governed by the Arbitration Law (Chapter 4), the 1979 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration (Ratification) Law (Law 84/1979) and the International Commercial Arbitration Law of 1987 (N.101/1987).
Law No. 101/1997, which applies only to international commercial arbitrations, defines international arbitration as the arbitration between the parties having their place of business in different countries and defines commercial arbitration as referring to matters arising from relationships of a commercial nature, whether conventional or not.
By decision of the European Arbitration Centre, this Centre will be expanded to establish a Cyprus Court of Arbitration in Cyprus.
Cypriot law is an attractive choice of law to conduct international arbitration to resolve commercial and economic disputes, as it has a specific legal framework for conducting international commercial arbitrations and a high level of professional legal service. Also, due to its strategic position, Cyprus can be established as an international centre for the settlement of commercial disputes through arbitration for the surrounding area, from which Cypriot and foreign businessmen can benefit.
The law firm, Michael Kyprianou & Co. LLC, provides legal services and advice at all stages and levels of the dispute settlement procedure through international arbitration.
The content of this article is a general description of the subject.
Specialized legal advice is provided in each specific case. For further information contact us.