(1984)1984 January 9 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] THE SHFP "FORUM STAR" AND HER CARGO. Appellor!ts-Applicants, v. KOTHARI TRADING CO. AND OTHERS, Respondents. {Application in Civil Appeal No. 6654). Civil Procedure—Jurisdiction—Interlocutory order made by a Judge of this Court—Appeal against it—Anotfier Judge of this Court has nojurisdiction to suspend its operation whilst itsfate is still being examined and isgoingto be decidedby the Judge whomade if—Section 32 of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14/60). 5 On the 26th November, 1983 another Judge of this Couri (Mr. Justice Loiis) made an interlocutory order inan Admiralty Action. On the 10th December, 1983 the applicants applied for the suspension of the interlocutory order and, also, filed notice of a motion for the setting aside of such order. The 10 hearing as regards the setting aside of the interlocutory order took place on variousdates in December 1983and was adjourned for continuation on the 10th January,
- The application for the suspension of the operation of the interlocutory order was heard on the 28th December, 1983 and dismissed on the 15 following day. As against this dismissal an appeal was filed and by means of an application which was filed in the appeal on the 3rd January, 1984 it was, in effect, being sought to stay the execution, or suspend the operation, pending the determination of the appeal, of the interlocutory order which was made 20 as above on the 26th November,
- On the application of the 3rd January, 1984: Held,that this Court is,ineffect, being asked, while the hearing as regards the fate of the interlocutory order made on the 26th November 1983isfixed for continuation on the 10th January 1984 before Loris J., to make itself, because ofthe filing of the present 764 25 I C.I..R. 5 Ship"Forum Star" and her Cargo·*•• Kothari Brading Co. appeal, an order, under section 32 of Law 14/60, suspending the operation of the said interlocutory order; that it has no jurisdiction to suspend the operation of an interlocutory order which was made by another Judge of this Court and the fate of which is still being examined and is going to be decided by him; and that, accordingly, the application must fail. Application dismissed. Cases referred to: 10 Katarina Shipping Inc. v. The Cargo on Board the Ship "Poly"
(1978)I CL.R. 355:
(1978)I C.L.R. 486; The Ship "Algazera" v. John French-Paris
(1980)I C.L.R. 619; "Phoenix'1'' Greek General Insurance Co. S.A. v. At Khalaf Exhibition
(1981)1 C.L.R. 673; 15 Erinford Properties Ltd. v. Cheshire County Council [1974] 2 All E.R. 448 at p. 454; Distos Compania Naviera S.A. (No. 4) v. The Cargo on Board the Ship "Siskina"
(1976)1 C.L.R. 405: 20 Tqfco (Foreign Trade Organization for Chemicals and Foodstuff's) of Syria (No. 2) v. The Ship "Lambros C Oitd het cargo
(1977)I C.L.R. 159; London and Overseas (Sugar) Co: v. Tempest Bay Shipping Co. Ltd.
(1978)I C.L.R. 367; Sclteepswerf Bodewes-Gruno v. The Ship "Algazera"
(1980)1 C.L.R. 595; 25 Essex Overseas Trade Services Ltd. v. The Legent Shipping Co. Ltd. (1981.) I C.L.R.
- Application. 30 Application by appellants for an order staying execution or suspending the operation, pending the determination of the appeal, of an interlocutory order made in Admiralty Action No. 358/83 on the 26th November,
- M. Montanios with E. Afontanios, for the applicants. 35 L, Papaphilippou with Chr. Christophides, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. 765 Ship "Forum Star" and her carjjo v. KothariTrading Co.
(1984)TRIANTAHLLIDI-S P. read the following decision. By mc<:ns of the present application which was filed in '•his appeal on the 3rd January 1984 it is. in effect, being sought to stay the exe cution. or suspend the operation, pending the determination of the appeal, of an interlocutory order mp.de by another Judge 5 of this Court,my brother Judge Mr. Justice Loris. in Admiralty Action No. 358/
- on the 26th November
- The same application was made by the applicants before Loris J. who. on the 29th December
- refused to grant it: and against his decision the present appeal was filed. 10 It is quite clear that it is noi being sought now to slay execu tion of the decision of Loris J., given on the 29th December
- which is the subject-matter of the appeal. Had that been the position 1 would have had to approach the matter before me in the exercise of the relevant powers of this Court 15 under rule 18 of Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules (sec. inter alia, in this respect, Katarina Shipping Inc. v. TheCargo onBoardthe Ship "Poly",
(1978)1C.L.R. 355. The Ship"Algaze ra' v. John French-Paris,
(1980)I C.L.R.. 619, "Phoenix" Greek GeneralInsurance CompanyS.A. v. A! Khakif Exhibition. 20
(1981)1 C.L.R. 673). Nor. when Loris J. issued the interlocutory order of the 26th November Ί983, was there and then made to him any appli cation in an effort to stay execution of such interlocutory order pending an appeal, or to secure under section 32 of the Courts 25 of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14/60) an order preserving the status quo pending an appeal, or an order based on the relevant prin ciple expounded in,inter alia, ErinfordPropertiesLtd. v.Cheshire County Council,[1974] 2 All E.R. 448, 454 (see, in this respect, inter alia, Distos Compania Navicra S.A. {No. 4) v. The Cargo 20 onBoardthe Ship "Siskina",
(1976)1 C.L.R.405, Tafco(/orcign Trade Organization for Chemicals and Foodstuffs) of Syria {No. 2) v. The Ship "Lambros L" and her cargo,
(1977)1 C.L.R. 159, London and Overseas (Sugar) Co. v. Tempest Bay Shipping Co. Ltd.,
(1978)1 C.L.R. 367, Katarina Shipping Inc. v. The 35 Cargonow on Board the Ship "PoIy\
(1978)1 C.L.R. 486, 511, Scheepswerf Bodewes-Gruno v. The Ship "Algazera",
(1980)1 C.L.R. 595 and Essex Overseas Trade Services Ltd. v. The Legem Shipping Co. Ltd.,
(1981)1 C.L.R. 263). 766 1 C.L.R. Ship"Forum Siar"andhercargo v. KothariTrading Co. friantafyllides P. The application before Loris J. for the suspension of the interlocutory order which he had made on the 26th November 1983 was made later, on the 10th December 1983,at the same time when the applicants, as defendants intheAdmiraltyAction 5 in question, filed notice of a motion for the setting aside of the said interlocutory order, which had been made returnable on the 12th December 1983; and as it appears from the decision of Loris J.: of 29th December 1983, against which the present appeal was made, the hearing before him as regards 10 thesettingaside of the interlocutory order of the26th November 1983 took place on the 16th, 20th and 22nd December 1983 and it lias been adjourned for continuation on the 10th January
- The application for the suspension, in the meantime, of 15 the operation of the interlocutory order of the 26th November 1983 which was filed, as already stated, on the 10th December 1983, remained in the file and it was not pursued by the applicants until the 27th December 1983 when it was placed by the Registrar, at the request of the applicants, before Loris J. 20 who heard it on the 28th December 1983 and dismissed it on the 29th December
- J am now, in effect, being asked, while the hearing as regards the fate of the interlocutory order made on the 26th November 1983 is fixed for continuation on the 10th January 1984 before 25 Loris J., to make myself, because of the filing of the present appeal, an order, under section 32 of Law 14/60, suspending the operation of the said interlocutory order. I have reached the conclusion that I have no jurisdiction as one Judge of this Court to suspend the operation of an inter30 locutory order which was made by another Judge of this Court and the fate of which is still being examined and is going to be decided by him. 1 would like to stress that this case is clearly distinguishable from a case in which a Judge of this Court who has issued an 35 interlocutory order in respect of a ship or her cargo has decided later to either discharge it or make it final and it isbeing sought, pending the determination of an appeal against hissaid decision, to preserve the status quo by means of either a stay of execution or an order under section 32 of Law 14/60 or in accordance 40 with the principles expounded in the Erinford case, supra. 767 Triantafyllides P. Ship "Forum Star" and her cargo v. Kothari Trading Co
(1984)For all the foregoing reasons this application is dismissed with costs. Since 1 havefound that 1 donot possessjurisdiction to interveneinfavour oftheapplicantsasappliedfor bythem bymeans of their present application which 1have just dismissed, it is 5 not necessary for me to consider at all whether or not I was prevented from dealing with the present application because there is pending an application of the respondents,filedon the 31stDecember 1983,for an order stayingall proceedings in this appeal on theground that theappellants areguilty ofcontempt ]0 of the trial Judge, Loris J. The application of 31st December 1983 will be dealt with later, if necessary, in the appropriate manner. Application dismissed with costs. 768