(1988)1988July26 (SmiANIDES.J.) INTHEMATTER OFANAPPLICATION BYLOUIS TOURISTAC7ENCYLTDFORLEAVETOAPPLY FORORDERSOFCERTIORARIANDMANDAMUS and INTHEMATTEROFTHEJUDGMENTOFINDUSTRIAL DISPUTES COURTDATED24.6.88,INAPPLICATION NO.215/86. (CivilApplication No. 116/88). Prerogative Orders—Certiorari/Mandamus —Leave to apply for— Principlesapplicable — «Arguablepoint», «prima faciecase». Question oflaw— Whatisconsidered to beaquestion oflaw. IndustrialDisputes Court —Appeal from itsdecisions —«Onany ground involving apoint oflawonly»— Whatisconsidered tobeaquestion 5 oflaw. The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court. Leave to apply for orders of Certiorariand Mandamus granted. 10 Cases referred to: Sidnell v. Wilsonand others [1966] 1AllE.R.681; Land Securities Pic v. Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District [1983]2 AH E.R. 254; Inre CostasPapadopoulos,
(1968)1C.L.R.496; 15 ExParteMaroulleti
(1970)1C.L.R.75; InreNinaPanaretou
(1972)1 C.L.R.165; Zenios andAnother v.DisciplinaryBoard
(1978)1C.L.R.382; InreAzinas
(1980)1C.L.R.466; InreMalikidesand Others
(1980)1C.L.R. 472; 454 20 1 O.L.R. Inre Louis TouristAgency Ltd InreKakos
(1984)1 C.L.R.876; InreKa/to*U985)1 C.L.R.250; InreArgyrides
(1987)1C.L.R.23; Christofidesv. RedundantEmployeesFund
(1978)1C.L.R.208; Constantinidouv.Woolworth
(1980)1 C.L.R.302; 5 Stylianidesv. Paschalidou
(1985)1 C.L.R. 49; ACT. TexctilesLtdv.Zodhiatis
(1986)1 C.L.R.89; Edwardsv. Bairstow[1955]3AllE.R.
- Application. Application for leave toapply for an order of certiorari to bring 10 upandquashthedecisionoftheIndustrialDisputesCourtinAppl. No. 215/86 dated 24.6.
- N. Papaefstathiou, forthe applicants. Cur.adv. vult STYLIANIDESJ. read the following decision. Bymeans of this 15 application the applicants seek leave to apply for an order of certioraritobring up and quash:(i)The decision of the Industrial Disputes Court of 24th June, 1988, in Application No. 215/86, whereby their request to state the questions of law set out in the appendix attached, for the 20 determination of the Supreme Court waspartly refused; and (ii)Thememorandum statingthequestionsoflawbytheIndustrial Disputes Court for the opinion of the Supreme Court, in which onlythreequestionswerereferred, different from thequestionsof law requested tobe stated. 25 Applicants, also, seek leave to issue an order of mandamus, ordering the Industrial Disputes Court to state the case for the determination by the Supreme Court as per request of the applicants dated 10thJune,
- The applicants were respondents in Application No. 215/86 30 filed before the Industrial Disputes Court (the «Court»). On 23rd May, 1988,that Court delivered itsreserved judgmentwhereby it ordered andadjudged theapplicantstopaytotheclaimant wages inlieuofnotice,damagesundersection3
(1)oftheThird Schedule (paragraph 4)»ofLaw24/67 -88). 455 Stylianides J. In re Louis TouristAgency Ltd
(1988)On 10th June, 1988, counsel for the applicants filed an appeal by way of case stated pursuant to the provisions of section 12(l3)(b)(ii) of TheAnnual Holidays with Pay Law, 1967 (Law No. 24/67), as amended by section 3 of Law 5/73 and Rule 17
(1)of the Rules of Procedure published in the Official Gazetteof 28th 5 Febaiary, 1968, under Notification 151, Supplement II(I), which continue to be in force by virtue of section 7 of Law 5/73. On 20th June, 1988, counsel for theapplicants were '"nvited to address theCourtinsupport oftheirapplication,before theCourt proceeded under Rule 17
(2)tostatethe case. 10 On 24th June, 1988, the Court issued a decision whereby the request of theapplicants was partly accepted on only threeof the legal points set out in their application and the said questions stated are allegedly different from thosetheCourtdecided tostate and/or atany rate notas requested. 15 The five questions requested to be stated by the Court are ExhibitB,thedecision oftheCourtdated24thJune, 1988, Exhibit Γand the memorandum prepared by the Court Exhibit Δ to the affidavit sworn by Nairy Merheje, an internal legal adviser of the applicants, insupport of the present application. 20 The Supreme Court at this stage must be satisfied by the material before it, if accepted as accurate, thata prima facie case is made out or an arguable point is raised. A prima facie case should be made out sufficiently tojustify the granting of leave to the applicant to move this Courttoissueaprerogative order.The 25 expressions «arguable point»and«primafacie case»areused inthe sense of a case that it is sufficient thatthe applicantshould show that there isa bona fide arguable case without the need togo into any rebutting evidence putforward. Itisacase which is sufficiently arguable and merits an answer. (Sidnell v. Wilson and Others 30 [1966] 1All E.R.681,atp. 685; LandSecurities Picv. Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District[1983] 2 All E.R. 254, at p. 258; Costas Papadopoullos (ExParte)
(1968)1 C.L.R. 496; Ex Parte Loucia Kyriacou Christou Maroulleti
(1970)1 C.L.R. 75; In re Nina Panaretou
(1972)1 C.L.R. 165; Zenios & Another v. 35 Disciplinary Board
(1978)1 C.L.R. 382; In re Azinas
(1980)1 C.L.R. 466; Inre Malikides and Others
(1980)1 C.L.R. 472; In re Kakos
(1984)1 C.L.R.876; InreKakos
(1985)1C.L.R.250; In re Argyrides
(1987)1 C.L.R. 23.) 456 1 C.L.R. In re Louis TouristAgency Ltd Stylianides J. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the Court misinterpreted andmisapplied thelaw which isanerrorof law and acted inexcessof power and inan arbitrary manner.Thecase was stated by theCourtinapparentexcessofpower andontheface of 5 therecorditiscontrarytolaw andthedecision of thatCourt.There is an error of law on the face of the record, both in the interim decision and the case stated. An appeal from a judgment of the Court lies on «any ground involving a pointof law only»and itis madeby way of case stated 10 as provided by the Rules. The Supreme Court has pointed out in a number of cases that it is desirable that in case stated the question submitted for the decision of thisCourtshould be clearly formulated and embodied in thestatementof the case so thatthevery purpose of stating the 15 case, i.e., of having well defined legal issues, can be achieved (Christofides v. RedundantEmployees Fund
(1978)1C.L.R. 208, atp. 214; Constantinidou v. Woolworth
(1980)1C.L.R.302, atp. 313). The trial Court has to state definable points of law for the 20 decision of thisCourtand notquestions of fact. «Question of law» isaverygeneral term.Without attemptinganexhaustive definition of what is a question of law, Imay say that, whenever an issue revolves round the application of the law togiven facts itraises a pure question of Law andso longasthefacts,onwhich theCourtis 25 required toapply thelaw, are notcalled inquestion, thepointisa legal one.Exploration of theambit of thelaw isalwaysa question of law, as well as questions of interpretationand thescope of law, (Stratis Stylianides v. Phaedra Paschalidou
(1985)1 C.L.R. 49). Acting onnoevidence, oractingonevidence which ought to have 30 been rejected, orfailingtotake intoconsiderationevidence which ought to have been considered, are matters of law - (A.C.T. Textiles Ltd. v. Georghios Zodhiatis
(1986)1C.L.R.89, atp. 104. See,also,Edwardsv. Bairstow[1955] 3All E.R.48,atpp. 56,57). Having examined the questions appearing in Exhibit B, I have 35 reachedtheconclusionthatprimafacie allthequestions requested to be stated for the determination by the Supreme Court are questions of law. Prima facie the three questions stated in Exhibit Δ by the Courtare different from those decided tobe stated inthe decision of 24th June, 1988 and definitely do not encompass the 457 Stylianides J. In re Louis TouristAgency Ltd
(1988)whole question of each of the three questions requested by applicants. Inviewof the above, Ithinkthatthematerialbefore me justifies theconclusion thatanarguablecasehasbeen madesufficiently to merit further consideration after leave isgiventotheapplicants to apply for an order of certiorari as per present application and an order to move this Court for the issue of mandamus order as applied. 5 Leave granted. Proceedings in Application No. 215/86 of the Industrial 10 Disputes Court are hereby to be stayed until further order of this Court. The application for certiorari and mandamus to be filed within 14days from today. Application granted. 15 458