(1988)1988 May 26 (A L01Z0U Ρ SAWIDES KOURRIS JJ) NEOPHYTOSLOIZOU, Appellant-Plaintiff, ν ANDREASKARTSIOULIS, Respondent-Defendant (CivilAppeal No 7221) Credibilityot witnesses—binding of factas to—Interference by Court of Appeal—Principles applicable Civil Procedure—Costs—The breadth of the discretion of a trialCourt and how itmust be exercised 5 Costs—Interference by Court of Appeal—Pnnciples applicable The appellant agreed to buy respondent' s butcher business for £1,650 - He paid £150 as an advance The respondent broke the contract and, as a result, the appellant sued himfor thereturn of the £150 and for £1,800 damages for breach of contract The trial Judge awarded to theappellant (plaintiff) the£150 but found thatthe evidence as tothedamages was notcreditworthy and for thisreason heawarded £10nominaldamages TheJudge didnot make any order as to costs 10 Hence this appeal Held,dismissing theappeal
(1)Thereisnoreason to.nterfere with the findings of fact of the trial Judge as regards the credibility of witnesses 15
(2)The discretion of atrial Courtas tocosts isvery wide, but it has tobe exercised judicially in accordancewith fixed pnnciples Pnvate opinion orbenevolence have noplace Inthiscase theappellant had 2 0 pursued an exorbitant claim for damages These circumstances constitute a ground for exercising the discretion in the way itwas in fact exercised Appeal dismissed withcosts 314 1 C.L.R. Loizouv. Kartsioulls Appeal. Appeal byplaintiff againstthejudgmentsof theDistrictCourtof Nicosia (Laoutas, S.D.J.) dated the 24th June, 1986 (Action No. 2331/83) whereby the defendant was ordered to pay to him the 5 sum of £160.- damages in respect of an agreement entered between them for the sale of abutcher's business. A.Papakokkinou (Miss),for the appellant. St. Karydes,for the respondent. ALOIZOU P. gave the following judgment of the Court. The 10 appellant inthisappeal wassuccessful before the DistrictCourtof Nicosia by havingjudgment given in hisfavour for the amountof £160.-, that is£150.-which hehad given asadvance payment for an agreement entered into between him and the respondent by which he bought the butcher business of the latter, and £10.15 nominal damages forbreach of thesaid agreement, with no order astocosts. Theagreement inquestion, whichwasanoralone,wasentered into between the parties to these proceedings on the 22nd November, 1982, was one of sale of the butcher shop of the 20 respondent to the appellant together with all the furniture and stock for the sum of £1650.- delivery to take place on the 27th November, 1982. An amount of £150 was paid and the balance would be paid when a written contractwasto be-signed. Five days later the said agreement was breached by the 25 respondent.The learnedtrialJudgethen concluded thatalthough there was a breach of the said agreement there was no credible evidence proving-the damage claimed in the Statement of Claim which were £1,800, made up as follows: (a) £160 on account of the shop remaining closed for two 30 weeks. (b) £1,640 damages as fojr-.two months beginning the 15th December 1982, he had no customers in · view of the announcement made by him about the sale of the shop. The first ground of law argued in thisappeal isthat the learned 35 trial Judge acted wrongly in not awarding damages to the appellant but only nominal ones. This ground turned on the findings of fact made by the learned trial Judge based on the credibility of the witnesses. 315 A. Lolzou P. Loizou v. Kartsioulis
(1988)Ithas been said time and again that thisCourt willnot interfere withthe findings offactbased onthecredibilityofwitnessesunless valid reasons exist for that purpose which have not, in our view, been put forward convincingly before usinthiscase.Aperusalof the record shows that the learned trial Judge arrived at these 5 findingsasregardstheissueoftheallegeddamageafter evaluating the evidence, and preferred for good reasons the version of the respondent to that of the appellant whom he found to be an untruthful witness and his testimony fully contradictory. This ground ofappeal therefore fails. 10 Thesecond ground ofappeal isagainsttheorderforcosts.Costs are inthediscretionoftheCourtandthoughsuchdiscretion isvery wide, it has to be exercised judicially and must be exercised on fixed principles,thatisaccordingtorulesofreasonandjustice,and notaccordingtoprivateopinion orevenbenevolence.Asamatter 15 of practice the costs follow the event ^nd a successful party is entitled tohiscostsunlesstheCourtintheexerciseofitsdiscretion otherwise directs,inthespecial circumstancesofaparticularcase. On appeal astocostswhere thecostsareinthediscretion ofthe Judge, this Court will assume that the trial Judge exercised his discretion unless satisfied that he did not do so, and it will not interfere where the trial Judge assigns reasons therefore which are perfectly germane and not based on any false principle. Nor where there also other possible means for his discretion. (The Annual Practice 1958p. 1834). In this case a claim between one thousand and two thousand pounds was filed against the defendant who had admitted that he had received the £150.- and in respect of which amount the plaintiff could have obtained judgment. Insuch a case he would have been inallprobability awarded hiscosts.Insteadhepursued 30 his claim for damages which we must say were exorbitant and could not be proved even if the totality of the evidence of the appellant aimed atprovingthedamagessuffered wasaccepted.In the result he wasawarded only ten pounds nominal damages. These circumstances constitute the possible grounds for the 35 learned trialJudge tohave exercised hisdiscretionjudiciallyinthe way he did and we see no reason to interfere withit. The appeal istherefore dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. 316 20 25