Supreme Court dismisses appeal and interim order application, refusing adjournment to save costs.
Zypern (CY)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Supreme Court dismissed the appellants' appeal and application for an interim order, refusing a requested adjournment. Counsel for the respondents initially suggested consenting to the delay only if costs were paid, but the court found no merit in the proceedings to justify prolonging them. Consequently, the court refused the adjournment to avoid unnecessary costs, noting that the parties' negotiations for settlement should address the merits rather than procedural delays.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generierts. 24 of the Supreme Court Rules; s. 10 of the Civil Procedure Law: The court may refuse an application for adjournment when the proceedings lack merit and the delay serves no purpose, thereby preventing unnecessary costs.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertVolltext
[*85] 1969 January 10
(VASSILIADES, P., TRIANTAFYLLIDES, JOSEPHIDES, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
The Commercial Firm Victory,
Appellants-Plaintiffs,
v.
Rothmans of Pall Mall Export Ltd. and Others,
Respondents-Defendants.
(Application in Civil Appeal No.4782).
Practice - Adjournment - Joint application by counsel to adjourn - Time to settle - Application refused to save parties from unnecessary costs.
Chr. Mitsides with A. Emilianides, for the Appellants.
C. Myrianthis for X. Clerides, for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:
VASSILIADES, P.: We must now deal with the application for adjournment which, apparently, counsel have arranged between them with a view to settlement. Respondents’ counsel, however, states that he would consent to the adjournment subject to the payment of costs; which means that one of the parties will have to bear the costs of this adjournment.
On the merits, as far as they appear on the record before us, there is nothing which would justify an adjournment; prima facie both the application for an Interim Order and the appeal, itself, do not seem to be well founded; we, therefore, see no reason why these proceedings should be prolonged any further and the parties be made to bear the costs of an adjournment; and we would refuse it. [*86]
This, however, should not in any way interfere with the parties’ negotiations for settlement. A settlement should concern the merits of the matter; and if there are any merits in such matter they are still there.
Application for adjournment is refused.
Mr. Mitsides: In the circumstances I abandon both the application for an Interim Order and the appeal itself.
Mr. Myrianthis: In such a case I claim costs.
VASSILIADES, P.: The application for Interim Order and the appeal, having been abandoned, will stand dismissed, but with no order as to costs, in view of respondents’ consent to the proposed unjustified adjournment.
Application dismissed;
no order as to costs.