Malang and Others v. Ship «Diana» (1986; the Marshal's expenses, the surplus will be absorbed by the crew claims, which even then will not be fully satisfied, the following order is issued, i.e. after the payment of £500 costs incurred in these proceedings, the surplus should be paid in satisfaction of ihe claims set out hereinbelow in the following order:
(1)Costs of arrest of the ship and
(2)Crew claims in actions 132, 133, 134, 135 and 136 to run pari passu, Order 5 accordingly. Applications. 10 Applications by plaintiffs, judgment creditors in the above actions for an order of the Court determining the priorities to the claimants against the proceeds of sale of the defendant ship. M. Eliades, for applicants in all actions. A. Skordis, for respondent-plaintiff 52/85. 15 in Action No. A. Petonfas for A. Stavroit, for respondents-plaintiffs in Actions Nos. 132/85 and 133/85. Th. Varda (Miss) for A. Poetis, for respondent plain- 20 tiff in Actions Nos. 215/85 and 217/85. M. Kyprianou for G. Savvides, for respondent-plaintiff in Action No. 301/85. SAVVIDES J. gave the following ruling. By these applications in the above actions, which were beard together. 25 the applicants-plaintiffs, judgment creditors in the said actions, pray for (
- a)an order of the Court determining the priorities of payments to the several claimants against the proceeds of sale of the defendant ship. (
- b)An order for payment out in the following of the amount lodged in Court: 30 order (
- i)Marshal's expenses. (
- ii)To plaintiffs-applicants in the present actions, their judgments in respect of wages. 262 35 1 C.L.R. Malar.g and Others v. Ship iDiana» Savvides J. The three applicants are seamen and were members oV the defendant ship against which they obtained judgments in respect of their salaries, wages unci ctliei benefits c'ue to them under 'heir relevant contracts cf empioymer.t. 5 The defendant ship "DIANA" v/:.s arrested b> an order of the Court dated 20th February. 1985, at the instance of the plaintiff in Action 52/85. The claim in such action wos for necessaries supplied to the ship and judgment was obtained by the plaintiff against the de10 fendant ship on 8th July, 1985. 15 20 25 Pursuant to an order of the Court the ship was sold by public auction for the sum of S38..000 (U.S.). Out of the said amount, a sum of C£9,722.65 was paid, with the approval of the Court, to the Marsha! as- Marshal's expenses in which repatriation expenses and wages of certain crew members nnd the master appointed by him after the arrest of the ship were included, and thus there remains a balance of around $18,000 (U.S.) deposited with the Bank of Cyprus. Besides the present action and Action 52/85, five other actions were brought against '.he defendant ship. Such actions are Admiralty Actions 132. and 133/85 in respect of crew claims in which judgment has already been obtained, Action 218/85, a cla<m by the master of the ship for wages and disbursements due by the defendant ship. A'so, Action 301/85 bv another master of the ship for wages nnd disbursements and Acvion 217/85 for necessaries supplied to the defendant ship. In the last three actions the claims have not yet been determined. 30 Mr. Skordis who appeared for plaintiff, judgment creditor in Action 52/85, submitted that the expenses incurred by plaintiff in such notion for the arrest of the ship and its sale should be paid in priority to any other pending claim. 35 When these applications came up for hearing, all counsel appearing in the said actions, and most of whom had filed 263 Savvides J. Malang and Others v. Ship cDfana» (198β) caveats against payment out of the proceeds of the sale, conceded that bearing in mind that the Marshal's expenses have been paid, the crew claims have priority over all other claims in the said actions. They further conceded that the expenses incurred by plaintiff in Action 52/85 for the arrest of the ship and its sale, had priority over the crew and the other claims. 5 It was further agreed by all parties concerned that the cost incurred in connection with these applications should also be paid in priority to the crew claims and that 10 though such costs were considerable, it was agreed that the five advocates appearing in these applications, namely, advocate for applicants, advocate for respondents-plaintiffs in Action 215 and 217, advocate for respondents-plaintiffs in 301/85, advocate for respondent-plaintiff in 52/85, '5 advovate for respondents-plaintiffs in 132 and 133/85 be paid C£100.- each against their costs in these pro ceedings. In the circumstances of the present case and bearing in mind the claims against the defendant ship which consists of- 20 (
- a)Marshal's expenses, (
- b)crew claims, (c)) masters* claims and disbursements and (
- d)necessaries, 25 the question of priorities does not present any problem and rightly, counsel appearing in these cases, admitted that the crew claims have priority over the master's wages and disbursements which, again, have priority over ne cessaries supplied to the ship. Bearing in mind the fact that after the payment of the Marshal's expenses out of the proceeds of the sale of the defendant ship, the surplus will be absorbed by the crew claims which even will not be fully satisfied, I make the following order for the ranking of priorities': After payment of an amount of C£500.- costs incurred in connection with these proceedings which have been 264 30 35 1 C.L.R. Malang and Others v. Ship iDlana» Savvides J . agreed upon by all parties concenred, any surplus of the proceeds of the sale to be paid in satisfaction of the claims set out hereinbelow in the following order: 5
(1)Costs of arrest of the ship up to the date of the order for sale in favour of plaintiff, judgment creditor, in Action No. 52/85.
(2)Crew claims in Actions Nos. 132, and 136/85 to run pari pasu. 133. 134. 135 Order accordingly, 265
(1986)1986 June 10 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, Ρ , MALACHTOS, DEMETRIADES. SAVVIDES. LORIS. PIKIS. KOURRIS, JJ.] ANDRHAS EVZONAS. Petitioner, GEORGHiOS PAPADOPOULOS AND OTHERS, Respondents. (Election Petition No. 1/86), Elections—General Election for the House of Representatives— Election Petition—Procedure—A pplication by summons for recounting of ihe preference votes cast for the peti tioner and respondent 1 and for extending the time within which the petitioner should submit a list of votes against 5 which he intends to object—The Election of Members of the House of Representatives (Election Petitions) Rules of Court, ! 981—Rule 6
(1). By means of the above election petition the petitioner seeks the annulment of the election of respondent I, as Representative of the Democratic Rally in the House of Representatives in respect of the constituency of Paphos and a declaration that the petitioner has been elected, instead of respondent 1, as Representative of the said party for the said constituency. 10 15 The petitioner filed ?,n application by summons seeking the recounting of the preference votes cast respectively for himself and respondent 1 and praying for an order extending thereafter for a period not exceeding 15 days the time within which there should be submitted to the 20 Chief Registrar by him a list of the votes against which he intends to object. It is clear that the extension of time is sought in order to enable the petitioner to comply with rule 6
(1)of the above rules. Respondents opposed the application. 25 266