IN RE CHRISTODOULIDES (1986) 1 CLR 145

(1986)1 CLR 145 THE CYPRUS LAW REPORTS ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ CyLaw | Αναφορικά μ'εμάς | " target="_top">Επικοινωνία | Όροι χρήσης Έρευνα - Κατάλογος Αποφάσεων - Εμφάνιση Αναφορών (Noteup on) - Αρχείο σε μορφή PDF - Αφαίρεση Υπογραμμίσεων

(1986)1 CLR 145 1985 May 4 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY PANAYIOTIS CHRISTODOULIDES FOR AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS (Application No. 74/84). The Rent Control Law, 23/83, s. 7-Case stated-Questions raising matters of law should be included therein. The applicant, against whom an eviction order was issued by the Rent Control Court, applied to the said Court for a Case Stated under s. 7 of Law 23/83. The said Court accepted to include three, but refused to include the remaining four questions, which the applicant has sought to raise, in the Case Stated. Hence the present application. Held, granting the application in part, that as two of the said four questions raise matters of Law, they ought to have been included in the Case Stated, whilst, as the remaining two questions raise matters of fact, they were correctly excluded from the Case Stated. Application granted in part. No order as to costs. Cases referred to: In re HjiCostas

(1984)1 C.L.R. 513; Stylianides v. Paschalidou

(1985)1 C.L.R. 49: Bracegirdle v. Oxley [19471 K. B. 349: Harris Simon & Co. Ltd. v. Manchester City Council [19751 1 All E.R. 412; Re D J M S. (a minor) [1977] 3 All E.R. 582; Barty King v. Ministry of Defence [1979] 2 All E.R.

1. Application. Application for an order of mandamus directing the Rent Control Court o Nicosia to include in Case Stated No. 206 in addition to the three questions already stated in the above Case Stated the remaining four which the applicant had sought to raise before the Supreme Court as questions of law. K. Michaelides with M. Georghiou, for the applicant. N. Stylianidou (Miss), for the applicant in Rent Control Appl. No. E. 33/
2. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. The applicant in the present case is the respondent in Rent Control Application No. E. 33/83 before the Rent Control Court of Nicosia. After the Rent Control Court issued, on the 28th September 1984, an eviction order against the applicant, counsel for the applicant applied, on the 6th October 1984, to the said Court for a Case Stated, under section 7 of the Rent Control Law, 1983 (Law 23/83), which provides for a Case Stated by way of appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law only. The Rent Control Court forwarded to the Supreme Court the Case Stated, which is now pending before it as Case Stated No. 206, but there were included therein only three out of the seven questions which the applicant-as the respondent before the Rent Control Court-had sought to raise before the Supreme Court as questions of law. The applicant now seeks an order of mandamus directing the Rent Control Court to include in such Case Stated the remaining four questions. It has to be decided whether the said questions are questions of law in the sense of section 7 of Law 23/
3. The said section 7 has been construed and applied in, inter alia, in re HjiCostas,

(1984)1 C.L.R. 513, 518 and Stylianides v. Paschalidou (Case Stated No. 205 in which judgment was delivered on the 7th February 1985 and s not reported yet). It is, also, pertinent to refer to relevant case-law in England, such as Bracegirdle v. Oxley, [1947] K.B. 349, Harris Simon & Co. Ltd. v. Manchester City Council, [1975] 1 All E.R. 412, Re D J M S (a. minor), [1977] 3 All E.R. 582, and Barty King v. Ministry of Defence, [1979] 2 All E.R.

1. Bearing in mind how the notion of a question of law has been defined in the aforementioned case-law in Cyprus and in England, I have reached the conclusion that questions Nos. 1 and 5 in the relevant application of the applicant to the Rent Control Court, dated 6th October 1984, can properly be treated as questions of law and, therefore, they ought to have been included, together with questions Nos. 2, 4 and 7, in the Case Stated. On the other hand, questions Nos. 3 and 6 appear to raise, really, issues of fact and cannot be treated as questions of law in the sense of section 7 of Law 23/
2. Consequently, an order of mandamus is hereby made for the inclusion of the said questions Nos. 1 and 5 in Case Stated No.
3. Bearing in mind that applicant has only been partly successful in this application I have decided to make no order as to its costs. Order accordingly. cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο