clr/1987/1987_3_1889.pdf

(1982)2 CLR 229 5 10 15 Practice — Contempt of Court — Contempt of Court committed by chairman of appellant company (derogatory remarksin lettersto the Court andattempt to influence decision made m one of such letters)— In the circumstances the contempt is attnbutable to the company — Stay of proceedings until the contempt ispurged — Constantimdes ν Ekdotikt Etena VimaLtd

(1983)1 CLR 348adopted The reserved judgment which was unanimous was tobe delivered on the 13th February 1984 Shortly before such delivery the chairman of the appellant company attemptedin writingtoinfluence thedecision infavour oftheappellant There followed atelex dated8 2 84 by thesame chairman containingwarnings that there would be stirred up adverse publicity internationally in case the judgment of the Court was not fairandinsinuatingthat the Court had ineffect already taken sides against the appellant by, allegedly, having delayed for quite some time the delivery of itsjudgment 20 As a result the reserved judgment was not delivered on 13 2 84 There followed another letter by the chairman dated 25 4 84 containing many derogatory remarks for the Court The Managing Director of the appellant company statedin writingthat the appellant does not agree with, approve of, or condone the communications 1889 LanltU Brosv.CentralBank

(1987)inquestionof itschairman,buthe didnot express condemnationor regret for the action takenby the chairman of the appellant company Held,

(1)It appears that the chairman ofthe appellant company, who is residing abroad,istakinga very active interest in the outcomeof the present appeal and thathehas actedin thisconnectiononbehalfofthecompany and not inapnvate capacity 5

(2)In the light of the relevant pnnciples of law regarding cnmmal responsibility of a company the chairman of theappellant company has committed cnmmal contemptofCourt onbehalf of the appellant company, which isattributable to the company

(3)Inline, therefore,with thecourse adoptedin Constantimdes ν Ekdottki Etena Vtma Ltd.,

(1983)1CL R 348, theproceedings inthis case willbe stayed until the chairman of theappellant company purgestothesatisfaction ofthisCourt thecontemptofCourtcommittedbyhim,andthro-ighhimbythe appellant company 10 ^ Order accordingly Casesreferred to DiasUnited Publishing Company Ltd ν The Police

(1982)2C L R 229, Constantimdes ν Ekdotiki Etena VimaLtd

(1983)1 C L R348 Appeal. 2 Q Appeal against the judgment ofaJudge ofthe Supreme Court of Cyprus (A. Lotzou, J.)given onthe1stJune, 1979 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 138/78*) whereby appellant's recourse against the decision of the respondent to treat the appellant company as being resident in Cyprus but controlled by non- 25 residents and therefore, not being able, without the permission of the Central Bank, toborrow money from residents inCyprus was dismissed. R.Johnson Q.C. with G.Polyviou andK. Michaelides, for the appellant. A. Evangelou, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv.vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following decision. After the hearing ofthisappeal had been completed itbecame necessary, in 35 *Reportedin

(1979)3C.LR. 176 1890 30 3 C.L.R. LanlttsBrosv.Central Bank TriantafyDides P. view of the nature and complexity of the issues that had been raised to consider at quite some length its outcome and, eventually the reserved judgment, which was unanimous wasto be delivered on the 13th February 1984 5 Then, shortlybefore that datethere wasreceived aletter, dated 16thJanuary 1984,from thechairmanof the board of directorsof theappellant company (whoistobe referred tohereinafter asthe «chairman of the appellant company») That letter was, unfortunately, a thinly veiled attempt, in the form of an 10 exhortation to influence the Court togive judgment in favour of the appellant There followed nextatelexmessage,dated 8th February 1984 from the chairman of the appellant company containing warnings that there would be stirred up adverse publicity internationally in 15 casethejudgment oftheCourtwasnotfairandinaccordancewith theprovisionsofthe law,and thereistobe found insuch message the unacceptable insinuation that the Court had in effect already taken sidesagainst the appellant by, allegedly, havingdelayed for quite some time the delivery of itsjudgment 20 Asaresultof the aforesaid letterandtelexmessage the reserved judgment of the Court was not delivered on the 13th February 1984, when it was to be delivered, and copies of the two documents in question were forwarded to both counsel from Cypruswho had appeared forthe appellant inthisappeal, aswell 25 as to counsel for the respondent, in order to afford to them an opportunity to submit in writing, for consideration by the Court, theirviews regarding the contents of such documents Counsel for the appellant denied any pnor knowledge of the cintents of thesaid letterand telexmessage and wedo not doubt 30 in the least their sincenty and veracity, and we record our appreciation for the way in which they expressed their disagreement with, and disapproval of, their contents and reiterated theirrespect fortheCourt, inunisonwithcounselforthe respondent 35 Then, on the 25 Apnl 1984, the chairman of the appellant company wrote alengthy letterwhich contains many derogatory fortheCourtstatements each one of which constitutesbyitseltan attempttointerfereunlawfullywiththecourseofjusticeinthiscase andresults,thus,incontemptofCourtofaveryaggravatednature 1891 Triantafylllde· P. LanltiaBrosv.CentralBank

(1987)Copies of this letter were again forwarded to counsel for the appellant and counsel fortherespondent, whowere heard bythis Court on the 30th October 1984. On that date counsel appearing for the appellant stated that neither the appellant company nor its board were aware of the 5 communications by its chairman «in his personal capacity» and consequently the appellant company disassociated itself from them. Ittranspired during the hearing on the30th October 1984 that, notwithstanding what had happened, the board ofdirectorsofthe 10 appellant company had not been convened to consider the position and to take any decision regarding the obnoxious conduct of itschairman. There was, however, produced before the Court a statement from the managing director of the appellant company inwhich it 15 wasstressed thatthe appellant doesnotagree with,approveof, or condone the communications in question of the chairman of the appellant company and that he did not act on behalf of_ the company in this matter. It is so to be noted that in the said statement of the managing 20 director of the appellant company there is not to be found any express condemnation of the action taken by the chairman of the appellant company nor anyexpression of regret for his conduct. From the contents of all his aforesaid communications, and, particularly, from those of his letter dated 25th April 1984, it 25 appears that the chairman of the appellant company, who is residing abroad, istaking avery active interest inthe outcome of the present Appeal and its possible impact on the affairs of the appellant company and that he has acted in this connection on behalf of the company and not in aprivate capacity. 30 In the light of the relevant principles of law regarding criminal responsibilityofa company(see,interalia,DiasUnitedPublishing CompanyLtd. v.ThePoIice,

(1982)2C L R . 229,aswellasMiller on Contempt of Court

(1976)p. 176) we are of the view that the chairman of the appellant company has committed criminal 35 contempt of Court on behalf of the appellant company which is attributable tothe company. In line, therefore, with the course adopted by our Supreme Court in Constantimdes v. Ekdotiki Etena Vima Ltd.,

(1983)1 1892 3 C.L.R. Lanltia Bros v.CentralBank TrlantafyUid*a P. C.L.R. 348,wehavedecided thattheproceedingsinthiscasewill bestayedandthereservedjudgmentwillnotbedelivereduntilthe chairman of the appellant company purges to the satisfaction of thisCourt the contempt of Court committed byhim, and through 5 him by the appellant company, either by appearing for this purpose before this Court or, ifhe cannot come to Cyprus, inan adequate manner inwriting. Ofcourse, ifthe appellant company takesanyaction which this Court willconsider asa satisfactory way of purging the contempt 10 ofCourt committed inthiscasethisCourtwillconsider whetherto revoke itsorder staying the proceedings and deliver its reserved judgment. We willhave no difficulty indelivering thejudgment even after the impending retirement of Mr. Justice Hadjianastassiou 15 because aswehavealreadystated, thisCourthasreached already a unanimous conclusion as totheoutcome of thisappeal. Order accordingly. I 1893