clr/1987/1987_1_85.pdf

(2)and 8(l)(b) of theForeign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Rules — The Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 applicable — Mode of Service - Subject to rule 7of Order 6 and m the absenceof any specificdirection bytheCourtandanyagreementinthecontractbetweenthe parties uw muuv uf-siivicz Isrcg*.!ctcd by the ' » " " ^ t h e muntrv wherettis effected- No obligation on thepart of the Court tospecify mode ofservice wherethereisnospecialrequestin theapplication beforeit-Service through official channels- Obligatory only mcase ofservicein acountry with which aconvention hasbeen extended to Cyprus Civil procedure^- Service out of the junsdichon— Mode of - See Foreign judgments, ante Civilprocedure - Irregulanty - Opposition toaninterlocutory application - Order 48, r4of theCivil Procedure Rules- Non-compliance with itsprovisions by failing tostaterule on which theopposition isbased-An irregulanty thatcan beremedied - Order 64of thesamerules Foreignjudgments - Registration of in Cyprus - Application for setting it aside Period limited bytheorderallowing theregistration - Whetherjurisdiction to extend such hme upon application filed after its expiration - The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Rules - Rule 6

(4)- Restrictsnght of debtor to apply for suchan extension "while it remains competent for any party tohavetheregistrationsetaside"-Rule 16

(2)ofthe samerulesmaking applicable the Civil Procedure Rules- Order 57, r2 of the CMI Procedure Rules- Mustbereadsubjecttothesaidrule 6

(4)85 InreWilliams aGlyn's Bank

(1987)Upon application by Williams and Glyn's Bank Pic (respondents) the DistrictCourt ofLimassolmadeonthe22 686anordertortheregistrationof a judgment, which hadbeen issuedbytheHighCourtofJustice inEngland infavour ofthe respondentsand againstLaertisShippingEnterpnsesSpecial ShippingS A. (appellant).Theorderprovidedthatexecutionshouldnotissue untilafter expiration of21daysfrom serviceofthenoticeofregistration upon appellants in Greece by double registered post. Dunng that penod the appellants would havethenght toapply forsettingasidethe registration. 5 Astherespondentswereunabletoeffect serviceinthemanner aforesaid, theyobtained afurther orderthatserviceofthe noticebe effected inLondon 10 on «N.and J. VlassopoulosLtd»,upon which company, inaccordance with the contract of guarantee, on which the judgment had been obtained, any document, notice orlegalprocesscould be served onthe appellants. On 20.7.82 the respondents effected service on «Vlassopoulos· by pnvate process server On the same daythe High CourtinEnglandgranted 1 5 stay of execution of the said judgment The stay continued in force until 1.2.85. On 27.385the respondents obtained from the D.C.Limassol awrit of attachment in execution of the saidjudgment Upon exparte application dated 20 4.85 the appellants obtained an order extending the time within whichtofileanapplicationtosetasidetheregistrationofthejudgment. Upon 2 0 application bytherespondentstheFullDistnctCourtofLimassolsetasidethe ordergrantingthesaidextentionoftime.Hencethepresent appeal Counsel for the appellants argued that the penod of 21 days did not begin torun,becausetherehad notbeen properserviceoftheregistrationof the foreign judgment upon the appellants, that the tnal Court wrongly held 2 5 thatappellantswerenotentitledtoquestionthevalidityoftheservice,having failed to invoke rule 9 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Rules (and by extension Ord. 6, rule 7 of the CivilProcedure Rules) in their opposition to the respondents' application for setting asjde the order for extension of time and, also,having failed to include Ord 57, rule 2 intheir 3 0 application for extention of time, with the result, in accordance with the decision ofthe tnalCourt, nottobe entitledinthelightofOrd.48,r.4of the CivilProcedure Rulestorelyon suchOrder,thatthetnalCourtwrongly held thatitdidnotpossessinherentjunsdictiontoenlargethetimeafter theperiod specified had expired and, finally, that the trialCourt wrongly held that, ifit 3 5 had discretion, itwould haveexercised itagainsttheappellantsbyreasonof theirexcessive delayinapplying forextention oftime. Held, dismissingthe appeal:

(1)(a)Rule 16

(2)of the Foreign Judgments Rulesprovides that the CivilProcedure Rulesare applicable «subject to the 86 1 C.L.R. |„ Γ«Williams & Glyn's Bank provisions of these rules- And rule 8

(1)(

1. b)provides that «notice m wnting of registrationofa judgment mustbeservedonthejudgment debtor (b)Ifoutof Cyprus, in accordance w i i h the rules applicable lo the service of a wnt of 5 15 summonsoutofCyprus savethaispecialleaveto serveoutofCyprusshall not be required- The Civil Procedure Rule applicable tosuchservice isOrder 6 which, saveas it is provided in rule 2 thereof (service in accordance with an agreement by the partiesto acontract)and asit isprovided in rule 7 (foreign country with which aconvention relatingto such service has been orshall be extended to Cyprus) makes no provision as to the mode of service Order 6 makes provision for service of a wnt of summons or notice thereof through official channels only in any foreign country with which a convention has been extended to Cyprus (
2. b)The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil orCommercial Matters(The Hague 15 11 65)ratifiedby Law 40/82 cannot haveabeanng in this case asitcame into forceon 16 83 that isafter the service on «Vlassopoulos» (
3. c)There is no provision either in Order 6 or in Order 5 as regards any obligation on the partof theCourt tospecify themoae ofservice where there isno specific request in the application before it ^U (
4. d)It follows that subject to rule 7 of Ord 6 the mode of service to be fo'Oyje^ m thp absence of anv specific direction by the Court and in the absence ofany specificagreement inthe contractbetween theparties,should be in accordance with the Law of the Country where such service was effected 25 (
5. e)In the light of the above the tnal Court correctly concludedthat service ——-as effected was proper.and that consequently the time had began to run as from the dateof service on "Vlassopoulos"

(2)Failure to invoke the rules is not fatal Non compliance with the 30 35 provisions of Ord 48 r 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not render the proceedingsanullity but constitutesamere irregulantythatcanbe remedied (Ord 64,r 1) Thisoutcome, however, oftherelevant groundsofappeal does not change the final outcome of the appeal

(3)As correctlystatedby the tnal Court anextension of timeon thebasisof any inherent jurisdictionof the Court couldnot be grantedbecause rule 6

(4)ofthe ForeignJudgments (ReciprocalEnforcement) Rulesexpressly limitsthe capacity of the debtor to apply for an extension of time and restnctshis nght to do so "while itremains competentforany party tohavetheregistration set aside" In the light of rule 16

(2)of the said Rules, the provisions of Ord 57. 87 In re Williams & Glyn's Bank

(1987)r2 of theCivil ProcedureRules mustbe read andapplied inthiscase subject to the said rule 6

(4)Similar provisions appear as regards judgment creditors insection4

(2)of theForeignJudgments (Reciprocal Enforcement)Law, Cap 10

(4)The stay in England does not constitute a justification for the delay in applying for extension oftime Onceservicewas effected on "Vlassopoulos", itreally became irrelevant in the circumstances whether the appellants were informed of itor,atbest,theburdenwas ontheappellantstoexplain, inso far as relevant, why they onlyfound outaboutthe registration onthe 18 4 85,as alleged in theiraffidavits Thisthey have entirely failed todo 5 10 Appeal dismissedwith costs Casesreferred to Spyropoulosv TransaviaHollandΝV. Amsterdam

(1979)1C LR 421; Re HadjiSotenou and Another

(1986)1CLR 429, TheShip *Glonana> ν Breidi

(1982)1CLR 409 , 15 Appeal. Appeal by respondentagainst thejudgment of theDistrictCourt of Limassol (Hadjitsangaris, P.D.C. and Hadjihambis D.J.) dated the26th July, 1985 (Gen.Appl. No.50/82) whereby theorderof a single judge of the trialCourtextending the period for applying 20 to set aside the registration of aforeign judgment was set aside. M.Eliades withA. Scordis, for the appellants. E.Montanios, for therespondents. Cur.adv.vult. A.LOIZOU,J. read thefollowing judgment of theCourt.Thisis 25 an appeal from the ruling of the Full District Court of Limassol, given on the application of the respondents inthisappeal, setting aside anOrderof asinglejudge of thetrialCourt,by which onthe application of thepresentappellants,theperiodfor applying toset asidetheregistration of aforeign judgmentagainstthemhadbeen 30 extended. Onthe22nd June, 1982 theDistrictCourtof Limassol, uponan 88 1 C.L.R. In re Williams a Glyn's Bank A. Loizou J. application of Williamsand Glyn's Bank Pic,dated the 19thJune, 1982, made an order for the registration of a judgment for US$7,537,529 97 obtained on 14th May, 1982 by the Bank against Laertis Shipping Enterpnses Special Shipping S A in 5 Action No 1982-W-No 691 in the Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division inthe High Courtof Justice in England 15 20 25 30 The Order specified that execution should not issue until after the expiration of 21 days from the service of notice of the registration upon Laertis in Greece by double registered letter. dunng which time Laertis would have the nght to apply for the settingaside of theregistration As theBankwas unabletososerve Laertis,theletterhaving been returnedmarked«UNKNOWN» on the 14th July, 1982, it obtained an order that notice of the registration be served onLaertisattheregistered office in London of «N & J Vlassopoulos Limited» upon which company, in accordancewith thetermsof theContractof Guarantee,onwhich the judgment had been obtained, any document, notice or legal process could be served on Laertis On the 20th July, 1982 the Bankserved noticeof theregistration onLaertis,c/oVlassopoulos atitsregistered office inLondonby pnvate process server Onthe same day tneHignCourtinEnglandgranied astay of execuuuiιυί thejudgment, which was eventually removed by that Courton 1st February, 1985, whereupon the Bank by an application in the Distnct Court of Limassol on the 27th March 1985, obtained a wnt of attachment of the proceeds of sale of a ship of Laertis. deposited in the~Supreme Courtrm-executton-of the registered — judgment This wnt Laertis sought to set aside by an application dated the 22nd Apnl, 1985, and by another application of even date Laertis applied for the setting aside of the registration of the judgment, having obtained through anapplication dated the20th Apnl, 1985, an Order extending forfivedays from the date of the application, the penod dunng which an application could be made tohave the registration of thejudgment set aside ThisOrderof theCourtdatedthe20thApnl 1985,extending for 35 five daysas from thedatethepenod dunngwhich theapplication to set aside the registration of thejudgment in question might be made, was subsequently set aside by theruling of the Full Distnct Court, which isthe subject matterof this appeal 89 A LoixouJ. Inre Williams &Glyn's Bank

(1987)It was decided therein that since proper service of the registration had been effected, no special procedure being provided for as to the mode of service of the notice on Vlassopoulos inthe Order of the 14th July 1982,timehad began torunon 20thJuly 1982and theapplication forextension oftime 5 hadbeen made atatimewhenLaertiswasnotcompetenttoapply to have the registration set aside, time having already expired by those dates, namely by 20th April1982and 22nd April1985. Itwas further decided that the general provisions of Order 57 rule 2 of the CivilProcedure Rulesto the effect that, "a Court.... 10 shall have power to enlarge .... the time .... although the application .... is not made until after the expiration of the time appointed or allowed," could notbe invoked, as the application for extension oftimehad notbeenbased onsuchOrder57rule 2 and that in any case such period hasbeen appointed not by the 15 rulesbutbythe Court. Finally, it was held that though there may exist an inherent jurisdiction of the Court to grant an extension after time had elapsed, nonetheless inthe present case an extension ofthetime couldnotbegrantedonthebasisofsuchjurisdictionbecauseRule 20 6

(4)of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Rules expresslylimitsthecapacityofthedebtortoapplyforanextension oftimeandrestrictsanddefineshisrighttodoso«whileitremains competent for any party to have the registration set aside»; and consequently there does not exist «in the Court any inherent 25 jurisdictiontoextendthetimeindirectcontradictiontotheexpress provisionsof Rule6

(4)whichspecifically dealswithandlimitsthe powers of the Court in this respect. Since the debtor's right to apply to have the registration set aside stems primarily from section 4

(2),itwould notseem possible for the Courttograntan 30 extensionoutsidethelimitsoftherightasspecifiedbytheLawand theRules.AftertheexpirationoftheperiodfixedbytheOrderthe creditor effectively acquires a vested right in the registered judgmentwhich cannotbe affected byanysubsequentaction on behalfofthedebtor.» 35 Themainargumentbycounselfortheappellantswasthatthere had not been proper service of the registration of the foreign 90 1 CL.R. In reWilliams &Glyn's Bank A.Loizou J. judgmentandconsequently thattheperiodof21daysforapplying to have the registration set aside had not began to run and therefore such application to set the registration aside could be entertained. Otherwise, even if there has been proper service in 5 which case the period of 21 days had expired, the Court had inherentjurisdiction togrant such extension. Itwas argued that there had not been proper service because therewasnoncompliancewiththerulesregardingservice,asthere had been nodirection bythe Court intheOrderastothemodeof 10 service, rendering thus the proceedings a nullity, not merely irregular. It was submitted that the Court should have made specific directions as to the mode of service which should have been effected through official channels and in accordance with our Civil Procedure Rules, in particular Order 5 which is 15 applicable by virtue of Rule 8(b) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Rules and not by way of a private process server, who had been instructed to that effect by the judgment creditor. . Ascorrectlyarguedbytheappellants,theCivilProcedure Rules 20 arc applicable by virtue of Rule 16

(2)of the Foreign Judgments Ruleswhich provides that: «The Rules of Court governing civil proceedings shall have effect subject tothe provisions ofthese rules.» AndRule8(l)b provides: 25 30 ~' «8.

(1)Notice inwritingofthe registration ofajudgment must beserved on thejudgment debtor(b) ifout of Cyprus, inaccordance withthe rules applicable to the service of a writ of summons out of Cyprus, save that special leave toserve out ofCyprusshall notbe required.» TheCivilProcedure rulewhichappliestotheserviceofawritof summons out of Cyprus isOrder 6. Therein there isnoprovision astothemode ofservice ofawrit ofsummonsoutsidethejurisdictionsaveinrule2totheeffect that: «Thepartiestoanycontractmayagreethatserviceofanywrit 91 A.LoizouJ. InreWilliamsaGlyn'sBank

(1987)of summons inany action brought in respect of suchcontract may be effected atany place inor outof Cyprus on any party or any person on behalf of any party or in any ma":,· specified, Qr indicated in such contract. Service of any ί;_ writ ofsummons attheplace (ifany) orontheparty oronthe 5 person (if any) or inthemanner (if any) specified or indicated in the contract shall be deemed to be good and effective service whenever the parties are resident, and if no place or mode or person be so specified or indicated, service out of Cyprus of such writ may be ordered.» 10 Alsoinrule 7thereof thefollowing isprovided, where service of a writ of summons or noticeof such writ is tobe effected: «in any foreign country with which a convention relating to such service has been or shall be extended to Cyprus the following procedure shall, subject toany special terms inthe convention, be adopted:-» 15 And in rule 8 itisprovided that: «The certificate of any British Consul shall, provided that itcertifies ....the writof summonsornoticeof thewritto have been personally served ortohave been dulyserved uponthe 20 defendant inaccordance with thelaw of such foreign country ....be deemed tobe sufficient proof of suchservices.» Useful reference may be made to the corresponding English rules. Rule 8U*)bof the ForeignJudgments (ReciprocalEnforcement) Rules corresponds to the English Order 41Β rule 7. Inthe note thereto, in the Annual Practice 1956, at p. 726, it refers to the general provisions of Order 11 onservice outof the jurisdiction. 25 OurOrder6 rule2 corresponds totheoldEnglish Order 11 rule 2A (Annual Practice 1956) replaced by Order 10 rule 3 R.S.C. 30 (Revision) 1962. Inthe Annual Practice

(1964)itisstated atp. 95 inrelationthereto: «Parties have aright toagree aspecial modeof service inplace of thatprovided by the Rules.» 92 * C.L.R. InreWilliam·&Glyn'sBank A.LoizouJ. Order 6, rule 8, corresponds to the old English Order 11 rule 3

(3)(Replaced b^the R.S.C.(Revision) 1962byOrder 11rules5, 6 and 8 -(seeAnnual Practice 1964). 5 Rule5

(3)(a)provides: «

(3)Awrit, or notice of a writ, in respect of which leave for service out of thejurisdiction hasbeen granted (a)need notbeservedpersonallyonthepersonrequiredtobe served so long as it isserved on him in accordance with the lawof the country inwhichservice is effected;» 10 Inthe note torule 5, itisstated asregards itseffect atp. 114: «Effect oftherule.-The rule consistsoftwoparts:Paras

(1)to

(3)aremainlyconcernedwiththemethodofserviceoutofthe jurisdiction generally where there is no provision for alternative methods, and proof of such service.» 15 English Order 11, rule 6, isheaded: «Service of writ or notice of writ abroad through foreign governments,judicial authoritiesand British consuls.» and it,inter alia, provides: 20 •

(1)ThisRule does not apply toservicein(

1. a)Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands; (
2. b)any Commonwealth country mentioned in subsection

(3)ofsection 1of fte British Nationality Act, 1948; (cj" 25 30 ;. : :....::....:...:.- ~ ---- — ThefollowingappearsinthenotetheretointheAnnualPractice 1965atp. 116: «This para, in effect excepts from the ambit of r.6 countries which are part of the Commonwealth, British colonies, protectorates ortrustterritories,and Eire.Section 1

(3)of the British Nationality Act, 1948 has been frequently amended and now embraces Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia, Ceylon, Ghana, Malaysia, Cyprus,Kenya andZanzibar.See previously, the High Court Writs(ServiceAbroad)Order, 1943.Inthesecountriesservice 93 A.LoizoaJ. InreWilliam,ftGtyn*·Bank

(1987)cannot be effected through official channels(thatis,through the government or judicial authorities or a British consular authority) and istherefore made bythe plaintiff orhisagent direct(seer.5

(3)(b)» IntheAnnualPractice1982atpp.106-107theaforesaid Order 11rule6,appearswiththefollowing qualification: 5 «6. -

(1)Save where a writ is to be served pursuant to paragraph (2A),thisRuledoesnotapplytoservicein (a)Scotland,NorthernIreland,theIsleofManortheChannel Islands; (b)anyindependentCommonwealthcountry; Andrule2Aprovides: «(2A)Where in accordance with these Rules, a writisto be served on a defendant inanycountrywhichisapartytothe 15 HagueConvention,thewritmaybeserved(

1. a)through theauthoritydesignatedunderthe Convention inrespectofthatcountry;or (
2. b)ifthelawofthatcountrypermits( i)throughthejudicialauthoritiesofthatcountry,or 20 (ii)through aBritishconsularauthorityinthatcountry.» Inthenotefollowingititis,interalia,stated(seeAnnualPractice 1982p.108). «Thereissomevarietyinthemethodsofservicepermittedand prohibited bythevariousconventions,buttwomethodsare 25 permitted by each of them, namely

(1)service through the judicialauthoritiesofthecountrywheretheserviceistotake place, and

(2)servicethrougha Britishconsularauthorityin thatcountry.Inregardtomethod

(2),however,thereissome variety in the provisions of the conventions as to the 30 nationalityofthepersonswhomaybesoserved. The other important method of service isthrough an agent appointed bytheplaintiff (inCzechoslovakia alocalsolicitor ornotary),butthisisnotpermittedinsomecountries,andin 35 94 10 1C.L.R. 5 In reWilliams ft Glyn'sBank A.LoizouJ. others is not permitted on subjects of those countries. Therefore, for simplicity, rule 6

(2)expresslypermitsservice in convention countries by one of the above two numbered methods, and subject to the qualification in sub-para (b), though it does not exclude other methods which may be available.» Finally itmay be pertinenttodwell shortly onOrder68 (Annual Practice 1964) on service of foreign process in England. Order68, rule 2 provides: 10 15 «2. -

(1)This rule applies in relation to the service of any process required in connection with civil or commercial proceedings pending before a court or other tribunal of a foreign country where a letterof request from such a tribunal requesting service on a person in England or Wales of any such process sent with the letter is received by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for ForeignAffairs and issent by himtothe SupremeCourtwithanintimationthatitisdesirable that effect should be given tothe request.» And further down at p. 1854, the following is stated as regards CM ui« SCOpc Οιu~,Z rule: 25 «Thisruleapplies onlywhere aletterofrequest issentfrom the foreign court or tribunal through official channels to the' Supreme Courtfor service here. Where process is sentfrom non-conventioncountriesabroadtobe servedhereby means otherthanofficial channelsTthere isno rulewhichenablesan English court to grant a certificate that service has been effected inaccordancewiththe requirementsof EnglishLaw.» So to sum up our Order6 makesprovisionfor serviceof awrit of summonsornoticeof suchwritthroughofficial channelsonly in 30 any foreigncountrywithwhichaconventionhasbeenextendedto Cyprus. Though Cyprus acceded to the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or CommercialMatters (The Hague,15November1965),which was 95 A.LoizoaJ. In re Williams a Glyn's Bank

(1987)ratified by Law No. 40 of 1982 on the 2nd July 1982, asrightly submitted by counsel for the respondents, in view of the periods provided in itsArticles27 and 28,the Convention could not have come intoforce inrespect ofCyprusonthe 18thJuly 1982,when serviceonVlassopouloswaseffected - Infact according toaletter 5 dated 19thApril1986,bytheMinistryofForeignAffairswhichwas produced during the course of the hearing the Convention entered into force in respect of Cyprus on the 1stJune 1983.So, even if there was specific evidence before the Court that the Hague Convention was applicable in England, as we have no 10 judicial notice of English Foreign Law,inwhich caseOrder6, rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules would have been applicable, its provisions being mandatory - «shallbe adopted»- , forall intents and purposes, in Cyprus onthe relevant dates, that ison the date of the registration of thejudgment inCyprus,which ispriortothe 15 ratification of the Convention, and on the dates of issue of the Order for service on LeartisA/lassopoulos and on the date of service on Vlassopoulos, there was no Convention in force. Consequently, as rightly found by the trial Court there was no requirement for servicethrough official channels. 20 As regards the appellants' argument that the Court ought to specify the mode of service eitheronan applicant'sapplication or on itsown motion and the Court'spower under Order5 todirect substituted service, we find that in the Civil Procedure Rules though itisspecified that the Court «shallappoint the time within 25 which thedefendant shallenterhisappearance tothewrit»(Order 5 rule 10),orunderOrder6,rule5,«Anyorder shalllimitatime after such service .... within which such defendant isto enter an appearance....»,neverthelessnoprovisionappearsasregardsany obligation/requirement oftheCourttospecifythemodeofservice 30 where there isnospecific request intheapplication before it.And the provisions of Order 5, rule 9 regarding substituted or other service byletteretc.,are notmandatory but empowering: «....the Court.... may makesuch order...» Themode of service therefore tobe followed intheabsence of 35 specific direction by the Court and in the absence of specific agreement in the contract between 4he parties, should be in 96 1 C.L.R. | n re WUIlams &Glyn's Bank A.Loizou J. accordance withtheLawofthecountrywheresuchserviceistobe effected. See: Halsbury' s Lsws of England (4th Edition)Vol.37, para. 194 at p. 146. Also Order 11 rule 5

(3){a) (Annual Practice 1964). 5 We can therefore find no foundation in the arguments of the appellants that the service of the notice of registration was made irregularlyorcontrarytoanyLaworRules.Weholdtherefore that the trial Court correctly concluded that service as effected was proper and that consequently the time had began to run. 10 Grounds of appeal 2 and 6 were argued together to the effect that the trial Court wrongly held that the respondents were not entitled to question the validity of the service, having failed to invokeRule9oftheForeignJudgments(Reciprocal Enforcement) Rules and by extension Order 6 rule 7, of the Civil Procedure 15 Rules,byfailingtoincludethemintheirnoticeofoppositiontothe Bank's application bysettingaside theorder for extension oftime during which an application for setting aside the registration may be made. And also that they failed to include Order 57 rule 2 in their application for extension of time and therefore, in 20 accordance withorder 48rule4oftheCivilProcedure Rulessuch order could not be reiied upon. It was contended by the appellants that since they had been allowed by the trial Court to argue such points before it, and as such ruleshad formed thebasisoftheproceedingstheycould not . 25 -therefore have relied upon them. Fromthefactsand documentsbefore usittranspiresthatRule8 andbyextensionOrder6,rule7,wasreferredtointheapplication of the respondent Bank to set aside the Order of the Court for extension of time but not by the present appellants in their 30 opposition thereto. On the other hand Order 57 rule 2 was referred to in such opposition though not in the original application of Laertis for extension of time. 35 Order48 rule4 interaliaprovides: «Such noticeshallrefertothespecificsection oftheLaworto the specific Rules of Court upon which the opposition is 97 A.LoizouJ. | n re Williams ft Glyn's Bank

(1987)founded.» We do not, however, agree with the trial Court that failure to invoke the rules is fatal. Noncompliance with rule 4 is an irregularity that can be remedied and not a nullity.Order 64, rule 1,of the CivilProcedure Rulesprovides: 5 «Non-compliance with any of these rules, orwith any ruleof practice for the time being in force, shall not render any proceedingsvoid unlesstheCourtorJudgeshallsodirect,but such proceedings maybe setasideeither whollyor inpart as irregular, oramended,orotherwisedealtwithinsuchmanner 10 and upon such terms asthe Court orJudge shallthink fit.» Inthe present instance we do not consider, as regards Rule 8, thatfailuretorefertoitintheopposition wasamaterial irregularity to preclude the appellants from invoking such order in their arguments before the Court,especially inviewof the fact thatthe 15 application of the Bank has been based on such rule. See Spyropoulos v. Transavia Holland N,V. Amsterdam

(1979)1 C.L.R. 421 at pp. 431-2; In re Julia HadjiSoteriou and Another

(1986)(unreported, judgment delivered on 17th October 1986)* TheShip *Gloriana v.Eddy Breidi

(1982)1C.L.R.409atpp.416- 20 420. The outcome of these grounds of appeal, however, cannot changethefinaloutcome ofthisappeal astheappellantsjoinedin the proceedings before the District Court despite the fact that, as they presently allege, they were improperly served, they applied 25 for an extension of time during which an application to set aside theregistration may be made and generally they didnot apply to have the proceedings ortheservicesetaside within a reasonable time. Itwasnextargued thatthetrialCourtwronglyheldtheviewthat 30 itdidnotpossessinherentjurisdictiontoenlargethetimeafter the period had expired on the ground that the appellants were no longer «competent» within the meaning of Rule 6

(4)as such envisages an extension of time to run from the expiration of the originalperiod specified bytheOrder. 35 •Repottedin

(1986)1 C.LR.429. 98 1 C.L.R. I n re WUllams ft Glyn's Bank A. Lolzoa J . It was contended that since the period of 21 days had in fact been fixed by the Court and not by the Rules, the Court had inherentjurisdiction toenlarge it. We find such argument to be without substance. As correctly 5 stated by the trial Court, rule 6

(4)clearly provides that an extension may be given while itremains competent forany party to apply tohave the registration setaside. Order 57 rule 2 does indeed provide that it may be enlarged notwithstandingthattimehasexpiredbutasstatedinRule 16

(2)of 10 the Foreign Judgment Rules, the Civil Procedure Rules apply subject to the Foreign Judgments Rules and therefore Order 57 rule 2, must be read and applied in the light and subject to the provisions of any rule on time. Consequently, since Rule 6

(4)expressly providesthata party mustbe competent andthuslimits 15 the time within which such application may be made, Order 57 rule 2 must be read subject to such provisions.Similar provisions also appear as regards a judgment creditor in section 4

(2)of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Law, Cap. 10, where inthe provisotheretothe following isstated: 2C -Provided that execution sh^li notissu? <">" *hp.judgment so long as, under this Part of this Law and the Rules of Court made thereunder, it is competent for any party to make an application to havetheregistration ofthejudgmentsetaside, or, where such an application is made, until after the 25 -—applicationhas.been.finallydetermined.» The final grounds of appeal, grounds 8 and 9 are that the trial Courtwrongly decided that itcould notexerciseanydiscretion to extend the time and, further, decided that ifthey had a discretion at all they would exercise itagainst the debtors, mainly because 30 there wasexcessivedelay inapplyingfor extension of time. Itwascontendedbytheappellantsthatthedelaywasjustified as they were informed of the registration at a very late stage. Moreover a stay of execution has been granted in England in respect oftheEnglishjudgmentwhichlasteduntilFebruary 1985, 35 about two months before the appellants applied foran extension of time. 99 A.LolzouJ. InreWilliam·aGlyn'sBank Relevant to this ground iswhat we have already said above, suffice ittosaythatanystayofexecutiongrantedinEnglanddoes not constitute any justification for the delay in applying for the extension oftimeespeciallyinviewofthefactthat,asfound, the appellants had properly been served of the proceedings against 5 them,whichascorrectlystatedbythetrialCourttotheeffect that the notice was served on Vlassopoulos in accordance with the orderofthe 14thJuly, 1982andtheContractofGuarantee,quite apartfrombeingsufficient noticeinitselfasregardsLaertis,atleast it raised a presumption that Laertis were thereby sufficiently 10 informed of itfrom the persons whom they elected for thevery purpose of service. Thus, though once service was properly effected on Vlassopoulos it really became irrelevant whether Laertis were informed of it, at best the burden was placed on Laertistoexplain,insofarasthatmightberelevant,why,aswas 15 alleged in their affidavits, they only found out about the registrationonthe 18thApril,1985.Thistheyhaveentirelyfailed todo. For all the above we have come to the conclusion that this appealshouldfailandisherebydismissedwithcosts. 20 Appealdismissedwithcosts. 100