(1987)1987 May 5 [LORIS J ] INTHE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ELBEE LIMITED FOR AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS (Application No 34/87) Industnal Disputes Court— Appeal by way of casestatedon questionsof law — Whatconstitutes a question of law — Ifquestion requested to be statedisa question of law,it should be statedas it was submitted by the appellant — Questions stated entirely different from questions of law submitted by appellant—Application by appellantfor anOrderof Mandamusgranted 5 Point of Law — Whatconstitutesapoint of law The applicantwas therespondentinapplication6/85 before the Industnal DisputesCourt Feelingaggneved by thedecision of theaforesaid Court,the applicantfiled anappealby way of case stated,requestingsuchCourttostate certain questions for determination by theSupreme Court 10 As a result the President of the Industnal Disputes Court stated three questions for consideration by theSupreme Court The applicant, however, alleging that the questions stated are totally different from those requested to be stated and having obtained the necessary leave (see Re Elbee Ltd
(1987)1 C LR 20), applied for an Order of Mandamus directing the 1 5 Presidenttostate thequestions actually requested Counselfor the applicantstatedclearly thatthefindings offactmadebythe Industnal Disputes Court are not disputed, what are really disputed are the inferences drawn therefrom inthatthey are unreasonable andwrong in law Counsel further submitted that the questions as formulated are totally different from thoserequested tobestatedandthatquestion
(1)as formulated isof apurely academicnature 20 Counselfor respondent 1maintainedthatquestions 1(γ),1(δ)and1(η)are questions of fact, but agreed that the remaining questions are questions of law Counsel for respondent 2 submitted thai the questions submitted by the applicantare questions of factor,atthemost,of mixedlaw andfact Counsel, however, conceded that the questions as drafted are different from those requested by theapplicanttobe stated Held,grantingthe application
(1)«Whenever anissue revolves round the 3 0 application of the law togiven facts, itraises a questionof law Solongas the facts to which the Court is requested to apply the law are not called in 364 25 1 C.L.R. In re Elbee Ltd. question, the point is a legal one It merely raised questions beanng on the interpretation and thescope of the law Explanation of the ambit ofthe law is always a question of law» (Styhanides ν Paschalides
(1985)1 C L R 49 reiteratingwhat wasstatedin /?eHaoiiCosiasd 984) 1 C L R 513atp 519) 5 10
(2)In the light of the matenal before the Court, this Court reached the conclusion that the questions requested by the applicant to be stated are c que 'ions of law and.as such, ought to have been statedassubmitted Though question
(1)was not happily drafted, it conveys a complaint that the tnal Court ignored its own findings contained in paras (a) to (η) of the question It follows that it is not correct to say that questions 1(γ), 1
(5), and 1(η) relate topure questions offact
(3)The questions as formulatedare entirely differentfromthosesubmitted by the appellant Application granted Nor order asto costs 15 Casesreferredto Styhanides ν Paschalides
(1985)1 C L R 49, Bracegirdlev Ox/ey11947) 1 KB 349. /?eH;jCosfas
(1984)1 C L R 513 20 Application. Application for an order of mandamus directing the Industrial Disputes Court to state the questions actually requested by the applicant for determination by the Supreme Court. K. Michaelides,for the applicant. 25 M. Tsiappa (Mrs.), for respondent
- A. Skordis, for respondent
- Cur. adv. vult LORIS J. read the following decision. By means of the present application, the above-named applicant, who has already 30 obtained the required leave of thisCourt on 14.2.1987, seeks an Order of mandamus, directing the Industrial Disputes Court to state the questions appearing in the Appendix attached to the presentapplication for determination by the Supreme Court. The history of these proceedings is very briefly as follows: 365 LorlsJ. InreElbee Ltd.
(1987)The applicant in the present application is the respondent in Application No.6/85 filed withthe Industnal DisputesCourt, who after heanng same delivered his judgment on 29 11 1986 The 'respondent feeling aggneved filed on 10 12 1986 an appeal, by way of case stated, whereby the Industnal Disputes Court was requested to state the questions appeanng in the Appendix attached to the present application, for determination by the Supreme Court 5 Theappeal bywayofcasestated wassubmittedpursuant tothe provisionsofRule 17{2)oftheRulesofProcedure 1968appeanng in the Appendix of the Arbitration Tnbunal Regulations 1968, 10 which has been retained and it is still applicable in virtue of the provisionsof s 7of Law 5/73 On 24 12 1986, the President of the Industnal Disputes Court stated for consideration by the Supreme Court three questions appeanng at page 7 of the case stated, appended to the present 15 application, under the Heading «Note by the President», the applicantinthepresentapplication allegingthatthesaid questions stated by the President are totally different from those the Court wasrequested tostate,filed initiallyan exparte application (Appl No 10/87) for leave to move the Court for the issue of an Order 20 of Mandamus, directing the Industnal Disputes Court to state the questions actually requested, for determination by the supreme Court Upon obtaining such leaveon 14 2 1987theapplicantfiled the present application withinthetimespecified intheOrdergranting 25 leave, prayi j for an Order of Mandamus directing the Industnal Disputes Court to state the questions appeanng inthe Appendix attached to the present application, for determination by the Supreme Court The present summons was addressed
(1)to the Honourable 30 President of the Industnal Disputes Court, who will be referred hereinafter as Respondent No 1, and 2) to advocates for the applicant in Application No 6/85 before the Industrial Disputes Court, who willbe referred hereinafter asRespondent No.2. On 8.4.1987 an opposition wasfiledon behalf of Respondent 3 5 No. 1bythelearned Attorney-General oftheRepublic supported by an affidavit of even date sworn by Robertas Bishiaras, the Registrarof the Industrial Disputes Court. 366 1 C.L.R. In re Elbee Ltd. * Loris J Or 9 4 87 counsel acting on behalf of Respondent No. 2 filed opposition as well adopting the contents of the affidavit already filed insupport of Respondent's No 1opposition On 11 4 87 at the heanng of the present application leamed 5 counsel appeanng for the applicant stated clearly before methat the fir-',nfii of fact made by the Industnal Disputes Court aie not disputed .vhat are actually in dispute are the inferences drawn therefrom by the Court, inferences- which according to the submission <ve unreasonable and wrong in law Counsel further 10 pointedoutthatthequestions formulated by thelearned President of the Industnal Disputes Court are entirely different from those submitted on behalf of the applicant Question No 1 as formulated by the Court - itwas argued by counsel -isan entirely academicquestion unconnectedwiththefacts of thecaseas found 15 by theCourthimself,such anacademicquestion - itwas submitted -does notrequire consideration by theSupreme Court Counsel for applicant further complained that questions 2 and 3 sought to be stated by Respondent No 1 are entirely different from the ones the applicant was seeking to be considered by the 20 Supreme Court Leamed Counsel appeanng for the Attorney-General of the Republic on behalf of Respondent No 1 maintained that questions 1(γ) 1(δ) and 1(η) submitted on behalf of the applicant are questions of fact She conceded though that the remaining 25 paragraphs of question 1 submitted by the applicant, as well as questions 2 &3 were questions of law and as such ought to have been transmitted by Respondent No 1 in the form they were submitted by the applicant, for determination by the Supreme Court. 30 Leamed Counsel appeanng for Respondent No 2 conceded interaha(a)thatthequestions framed by RespondentNo 1donot really represent what the applicant was seeking to be stated for determination by theSupreme Court, (b)thattherewas abetterway fortheprecise presentationofthe 35 3 questions formulated by RespondentNo 1; but went on to argue that the three questions submitted on behalf of the applicant were notquestions of law, buteither pure questions of fact or at the most questions of mixed law and fact which could not be submitted in virtue of case stated for the * 367 Lorls J . In re Elbre Ltd.
(1987)determination by theSupreme Courtas therelevant legislation (s. 12
(13)(b){ii) of Law 5/73) confines anappeal by way of case stated to«points of law only». Insupport of hisargument learned counsel for respondent No. 2 made extensive reference to the case of Sfylianides v. Paschalides
(1985)1 C.L.R. 49 and invited me to 5 hold that in any event the questions stated on behalf of the applicant were not questions of law and therefore the present application should be refused. In examining the ex-parte application (Appl. No.10/87) andin dealing in mysaid decision with theissue of «what is aquestion of 10 law» Ihave referred to the cases of Bracegirdlev. Oxley [1947] 1 R.B.349 and InRe HjiCostas
(1984)1 C.L.R.513atp.519, which I adopted. In Stylianides v. Paschalides (supra) our Court of Appeal adopted fully theexposition of thelaw inthecase of In Re HjiCostas (Supra), in connection with the notion of «question of 15 law»andreiteratedthat:«...Whenever anissuerevolvesroundthe applicationof thelaw togivenfacts, itraises apurequestion of law. So long as the facts towhich the Courtisrequired toapply the law are notcalled in question, thepointisa legal one. Itmerely raises questions bearing on the interpretation and the scope of the law. 20 Exploration of the ambit of the law isalways a question of law». Inthecase underconsideration itiscrystal clearthatthe findings of the leamed President of the Industrial Disputes Court on the facts, are not disputed. What the appeal by way of case stated seeks to impugn, are the inferences to be drawn from the facts as 25 found by the trialCourt. Having gone though the material before me in the light of the able addresses of counsel onall sides I hold theviewthatallthree questions applicant has requested the trial Court to state are questions of law, and as such ought to have been stated for 30 determination by theSupreme Court,as submitted on hisbehalf. Perhaps one may say the Question No. 1 (vide Appendix attached to the application)was notvery happily drafted; the fact remains though, that itconveys a complaint to the effect thatthe trial Court reached itsconclusion on thatparticular issue ignoring 35 (theunderlining is mine) itsown findings containedin paragraphs (a)to (n)of question
- Itis notcorrect therefore to maintainthat paragraphs (γ) (δ)and (η),of Question 1,relate topure questions of fact, whilst all the remaining paragraphs of the same question relate to questions of law, as submitted by leamed counsel for 40 Respondent No.
- 368 1C.L.R. Inr«ElbeeLtd, LorteJ. [ find myself unable to agree with leamed counsel for RespondentNo.2thatall3questionsstatedbyapplicantarepure questions of fact oratthemost,questions of mixed law and fact, although I fullyλagree with him that the three questions 5 fomriulated by Respondent No. 1, do not really represent what the applicant was seeking to be stated for determination by the SupremeCourt;onthislatterissueIwouldevengofurtherandsay that the questions formulated by Respondent No. 1 are entirely different from thosesubmitted bytheapplicant. 10 ForthereasonsIhaveendeavouredtoexplainabove, Iholdthe viewthattheOrderfor Mandamusas applied should be,anditis hereby,granted. Having given the mattermybestconsideration I havedecided tomakenoorderastothecosts ofthepresentapplication. 15 Applicationgranted. Noorderastocosts. 369