1C.LR. 1988April 4 (A. LOIZOU Ρ.SAWIDES, KOURRIS, JJ ) NICOSANTONIOU, Appellant-Applicant, v. ANNAANTONIOU, Respondent. (CivilAppealNo. 7391). Appeal— Fresh evidence—Principles applicable—Appeal from a judgmentdismissing anapplication forvariation ofa maintenance orderbyreducing theamountpayable byappellant thereunder— Allegationthatappellant'sconditionworsenedafterjudgment—As 5. inmaintenance proceedings changed circumstances can be relied upon byeitherparty insupport ofafresh application, thepresent applicationhastobedismissed. Thefactsofthiscasesufficiently appear from thejudgmentofthe Court. 10 Application dismissed. No ordersasto costs. Casesreferredto: Tziannarosv. KamUaris
(1988)1 C.L.R. 188. Application. 15 Application by appellant-applicant for leave to adduce fresh and further evidence. A. Eftychiou, forthe applicant. G.Triantafyllides, fortherespondent: A. LOIZOUP.gavethefollowingjudgment ofthe Court.Thisis 20 an application for leave to adduce fresh and further evidence which it is claimed came into existence after judgment was deliveredbythe DistrictCourtintheapplication of the applicant, now the appellant, by which he had prayed to have the maintenance order made against himvaried. 1221 A. Urfzoa P. Antonkmv.Antonfcra
(1988)The variation sought was that the amount adjudged tobe paid byhim should have been reduced inordertobeproportionate to his new financial position. That application was in fact dismissed withcostsagainsthim.Asagainstthatjudgment theapplicant filed the presentappeal. In the affidavit filed in support of this application it is claimed that the District Court did not accept the contention of the applicant at the trial that the business of the shop «Violetera» at Themistoklis Dervis Street owned- by Era Fashions Ltd., from which the appellant was earning a considerable amount and on 10 the basis of such income the trial Court assessed the amount of maintenance of the wife |and his infant child at £180 was not gettingonwell.After theissueofthejudgmentofthetrialCourton the 9th May,1987,the financial condition ofthesaidshop,which started goingbad earlier, notonlycontinued toworsenbutfinally 15 led to itsclosing down on account of insolvency, with net lossof £5,400. It was therefore relevant and necessary for the good administration of justice that the said piece of fresh and further evidencethatwasensued afterthe deliveryofthejudgmentofthe trial Court, that this Court could grant the necessary leave tobe 20 adduced before iton appeal. , Wehad recentlythe occasion torefertotherelevantcaselawof thisCourtinthecaseofPetrosTziannarosv.Sawas Constantinou KamilarisCivil Appeal No. 6771,judgment delivered on the 31st March, 1988, as yet unreported* and we need not repeat them 25 here.Suffice ittosaythata numberofconditionsmustbe fulfilled inordertojustify thereceptionoffresh evidence.Basicallybutnot exhaustivelythatthe evidence couldnothavebeen obtained with reasonable diligence for production at the trial,that itisof such a nature that had it been adduced it would probably have an 30 important bearing on the result of the case, and that it must be apparently credible though itneed not be incontrovertible. On the totality of the circumstances we find no merit in this application. In maintenance proceedings changed circumstances inaparty'sfinancial conditioncanberelied upon byeithersidein 35 support ot a fresh application for the variation of such maintenance order,therefore thisisnotoneoftheinstanceswhere fresh evidence need be adduced inthis Court. 'Reported inthisPartatp.188 ante. 222 5 1C.L.R. Antonfouv.Antonkm A.LoteooP. Foralltheabovereasonstheapplication isdismissed.Therewill be, however, no orderas tocostsasnone have been claimed. Application dismissed. No orderasto costs. 223