clr/1980/1980_1_183.pdf

(2)(a) of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14/60). This was an application, by the plaintiffs, made prior to the expiration of the writ of summons, for the renewal of the writ of summons against defendant 2 ship on the ground that service has not been effected on her because she did not call at a Cyprus port since the issue of such writ but was expected to come to a Cyprus port within the next six months. Held, that a good cause has been shown for granting the application which, however, does not preclude the defendant ship, after service is effected, to apply to the Court to have the order renewing the writ and service thereof set aside on good cause shown; that, therefore, the application will be granted; and that, accordingly, an order renewing the writ of summons for a period of six months from its expiration is made (principles laid down in Nigerian Produce Marketing Co. Ltd. and Another v. Sonora Shipping Company Ltd. and Another

(1979)1 C.L.R. 395 adopted). Application granted. 183 Churair & Sons v. Snatiren Shipping

(1980)Cases referred to: Nigerian Produce Marketing Co. Ltd. and Another v. Sonora ShippingCompanyLtd. and Another

(1979)I C.L.R. 395; Berny [1979] 1 Q.B. 80 at p. 103; "Hellen Roth", New Law Journal of the 24th January, 1980 at 5 p.

1. Application. Ex-parte application by plaintiffs for the renewal of the writ of summons against defendant
2. G. Arestis for G. Cacoyiannist for the applicants-plaintiffs. 10 Defendant absent. Cur. adv. vult. SAVVIDES J. read the following decision. By this ex-parte application applicants-plaintiffs apply for the renewal of the writ of summons against defendant
3. 15 This is a mixed action, in personam against defendants I as the owners of the defendant ship No. 2, and in rem against defendant 2 ship. The writ was issued on 22.3.79 and prior to its expiration, plaintiffs filed the present application praying for the renewal of the writ as against defendant
4. 20 The material facts relied upon in support of this application and as appearing in the accompanying affidavit of Mr. Sotirios Aniftos, a registered advocate's clerk, areto theeffect that service on defendant 2 has not been effected because the said ship did not call at a Cyprus port since the issue of such writ but is 25 expected to come to a Cyprus port within the next six months. The application is based on rule 237 of the Cyprus Admiralty Jurisdiction Order, 1893 and on Order 8, rule 1 of the English Rules of the Supreme Court, 1960(the old Rules of the Supreme Court in England which aie applicable in Cyprus by virtue of 30 section 19 and section 29

(2)(a) of the Courts of Justice Law 14 of 1960). In a recent decision delivered by me in Admiralty Action 174/76, Nigerian Produce Marketing Co. Ltd. and another v. Sonora Shipping Company Ltd. and another

(1979)1 C.L.R. 35 395 dealing with the question of renewal of a writ of summons in rem after its expiration, I had the opportunity of expounding 184 1 C.L.R. Churair & Sons v. Snatiren Shipping Sawides J. on the principles which may guide the Court in exercising its discretion in granting such application. Therefore, I find it unnecessary to repeat in the present decision such principles which are adopted for the purposes of the present application. 5 I wish only to add that thepresent application is made prior to the expiiation of the writ of summons which is an additional ground in favour of the applicants. Thequestionofrenewalofawritinan actioninremwasdealt with recently in Berny[1979] 1Q.B., 80, in which Brandon, J. 10 ingranting an order for therenewal ofa writ of summons in an action in rem., had this to observe at p. 103: 15 20 25 30 "In my opinion, when the ground for renewal is, broadly, that it has not been possible to effect service, a plaintiff must,inordertoshowgoodand sufficient causeforrenewal, establish one of other of three matters as follows:-

(1). _ that none of the ships proceeded against in respect of the sameclaim,whether in oneaction or morethan oneaction, havebeenorwillbe,presentataplacewithinthejurisdiction during the currency of the writ; alternatively

(2)that, if any of the ships have been, or will be, present at a place within thejurisdiction during the currency of the writ, the length or other circumstances ofher visit to or stay at such place werenot, or will not be, such as to afford reasonable opportunity for effecting service on her and arresting her; alternatively

(3)that, if any of the ships havebeen,or will . be, present at a place within the jurisdiction during the currency of the writ, the value of such ship was not orwill not be, great enough to provide adequate security for the claim, whereas the value of all or some or oneofthe other shipsproceeded againstwouldbesufficient, oranyhowmore nearly sufficient, to do so." Theprinciples laid down therein werefollowed in the"Hellen Roth" case in which an application to set aside the renewal of the writ of summons and service of it, and the unconditional 35 release of the arrested ship was refused. The short report of the case appears in the New Law Journal of the 24th January, 1980 at p. 91. On the facts before me I find that in the present case Ifind that a good cause has been shown for granting the application 185 Sawides J. Churair & Sons τ. Snatiren Shipping

(1980)which, howevei, does not preclude the defendant ship, after service is effected, to apply totheCourtto have theorder renew­ ing thewrit and service thereof set aside ongood cause shown. In the result, I grant the application and I make an order renewing the writ of summons for a period of six months from 5 its expiration. Application granted. 186