(1987)1987 June 25 (TRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ DEMETR1ADES SAW1DES PIK1S KOURRIS JJ ] PASTELLA MARINECOLTD Appellants-'Defendants, ν NATIONAL IRANIANTANKERCO LTD , Respondents -Plaintiffs (CivilAppeal No 7380) Appeal—Practice —GroundsofAppeal— TheCivilProcedureRules, Order35, rule 4— The test inorder to determine thequestion whether a ground of appeal complies with the requirementsofthesaidrule On theday,when this appeal was fixed for heanng, counsel for the respondentraisedanobjection thatgrounds 1,6and7inthenotceofappeal donotcomply with Order35,rule4oftheCivilProcedure Rules 3 As counsel forthe appellants admittedthatground 1was anintroductory ground, which would not be argued separately, the Court concerned itself with grounds6and7ofthenoticeofappeal Held,dismissingthe objection (I)Inorder todecide whetheraground of 1 0 appeal complieswith thesaidrule,itmustnotbelookedatinisolation,butin conjunction with theremaininggroundsof appeal and incorrelationwiththe judgment appealed from Inthe lightofthispnnciplegrounds 6and7satisfy the requirementsofOrder35,r4
(2)In any event the objection wasraised too belatedly, and moreover, counsel forthe respondent could have applied forparticulars of the said groundsofappeal J5 Orderaccordingly Casesreferredto Papadopoulouν Polykarpou
(1968)1C LR 352, Michaelν Kyriakou
(1968)1 C LR 405, Kyriaktdesν Kynakides
(1969)1C L R 373, 410 20 1 C.L.R. Pastetla Marine Co. v. Nat. Iranian Tanker Co. Attorney Generalν AdamsaLtd
(1974)1C LR 165 Mouzoun ν Makns
(1976)1CLR 329 Objection. Objection by counsel for the respondentsthatgrounds 1 6and 5 7inthenoticeof appeal donotcomplywith Order35.rule4ofthe • Civil Procedure Rules Ρ Sams withΡ Gross, for the appellants L Papaphilippou,for the respondents TRIANTAFYLUDES Ρ read the following decision of the 10 Court Thisisanappeal againstaninterlocutoryinjunction granted by aJudge of theSupremeCourtinAdmiralty Action No 212/86 and prohibiting the appellants from selling, mortgaging or otherwise alienating theCyprus ship «Burmpac Bahamas» Today, when the heanng of the present appeal was about to 15 commence, counsel for the respondents sought to object that grounds 1,6 and7inthenoticeofappeal donotcomply with rule 4 of Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the relevant part of which provides as follows 20 «The noticeshall also state allthegrounds of appeal andset forth fully the reasons relied upon for thegrounds stated » Counselfor therespondentshasargued thattheaforesaid three grounds of appeal, 1, 6 and 7, do not set forth fully the reasons relied upon insupport of themandhassubmitted thatcounsel for the appellants should apply for leave toamend them inorderto 25 secure their compliance with rule 4 of Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, if he is to be allowed tobe heard in support of them, and counsel for the respondents has referred to Papadopoulou ν Polykarpou,
(1968)1 CLR 352. Michael ν Kynakou,
(1968)1 C LR. 405 and Kynahdes ν Kynahdes, 30
(1969)1C L.R 373 Counsel for theappellants has nghtly conceded thatground 1 (that the trial Judge «erred in law and/or fact and/or pnnciple in granting the interlocutory injunction») -is nothing more than an introductory «ground» which will not be argued as a separate 35 ground of appeal and we, therefore, need not concern ourselves any furhter with such ground. 411 Triantafytlides P. Pasiella Marine v. Nat. IranianTanker
(1987)In addition to the case-law cited, as above, by counsel for the respondents, useful reference mayalsobemade,regardingrule4 ofOrder35oftheCivilProcedure Rules,to,interalia,thecasesof Attorney-General oftheRepublicv.AdamsaLtd.,
(1974)1 C.L.R. 165. and Mouzouri v. Makhs,
(1976)1C.L.R.
- 5 Inordertodecidewhetheragroundofappealcomplieswiththe requirements ofthesaidrule4itmustnotbelookedatinisolation but in conjunction with the remaining grounds in the notice of appeal and in correlation to the judgment appealed from; and having thus considered grounds of appeal 6 and 7 inthe present 10 case we think that they are drafted ina manner which suffices to satisfy the requirements of rule 4 of Order
- Bymeans of such grounds it isclearly contended, respectively, that in granting the interlocutory injunction the trial Judge interpreted and applied wronglysection32oftheCourtsofJusticeLaw,1960(Law14/60) 15 and that, having regard tothe circumstances of this case and the principles governing the making of injunctions under the said section 32, an interlocutory injunction should not have been granted on this occasion. In any event we would like to point out that the objection of 20 counsel for the respondents was raised toobelatedly, just before the commencement of the hearing of this appeal, about which notice hasbeen given to himas from 19May
- Moreover, counsel for the respondents could have applied in duetimeforparticularsofgroundsofappeal6and7buthehasnot 25 done so Intheresultwecannot upholdthecontention ofcounselforthe respondents regarding grounds of appeal 6 and 7,and we shall hear argument on these grounds as they have been framed without any amendment ofsuch groundsbeingnecessary. 30 Orderaccordingly.