(1988)1988August 17 [PIKIS,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION ANDREASPOLYCARPOU, Applicant, v. THECYPRUSTELECOMMUNICATIONSAUTHORITY, Respondent. (CaseNo. 502187). RevisionalJurisdiction—ErrorofRegistryconsistingoffailuretobringto the noticeoftheCourtthefact thatapplicantfiledanoticeofwithdrawalofthe recourseasfar asoneoftheinterestedpartieswasconcerned—Courtannulledsubjudicedecision, including thepromotion ofthesaidinterested party—Whetherpowertocorrecttheerror—Questiondeterminedintheof- 5 firmative—The Supreme ConstitutionalCourtRules,1962,Rule18andthe CivilProcedureRules, 0.25Rule6(Thesliprule). Recoursefor annulment—Practice—Withdrawal—Principles applicable— Withdrawalafterfilingofopposition—LeaveofCourtnecessary,butitwill onlyberefusedinanexceptionalcase. ^ Therecoursewasdirectedagainstthepromotionoftheinterestedparties.Sometimeafterjudgmenthadbeenreserved,butbefore itsdelivery, theapplicant,filedanoticewithdrawingtherecourseagainstAP.oneofthe interestedparties.TheRegistryfailedtobringthisnoticetothenoticeofthe Court.TheCourteventuallyannulledthesubjudicepromotions,including thepromotionofA.P.AtissuenowistheamenityofthisCourttoremedy theaforesaid error. 15 Held:
(1)Republicv.Loucaandothers
(1984)3C.L.R.241establishedtheprinciplethattheapplicantinproceedingsfor thereviewofadministrativeactionhaswhatmaybetermedaninherentrighttoabandonthe 20 proceedingsatanystage,includingtheappeal.Afortiori thesameappliesto theabandonmentofpartofthecause.Alitigantmayaddressthecourtfor thepurposeofsignifying theabandonmentofthecaseatanytimepriorto thedeliveryofajudgment. 1612 3 C.L.R. Polycarpou'v. CY.T.A. 2)In«visionalproceedings the CivilProcedureRules areinvirtueof Rule18oftheSupremeConstitutionalCourtRulesapplicabletotheextent ' thattheyarecompatiblewiththenatureoftherevisiohalprocessandsofar l a s circumstancespermit , .jV -. , : - 3)Ord.15oftheCivilProcedureRulesrequires theleaveoftheCourt1 for thewithdrawalofaproceedingafter thedeliveryofdefence thattakes ' liieformofopposition inproceedingsunderArt.146.
- 5 ' «"' •. « » 4) InapplyingOrd. 15, r.l, theCourtshould nodoubtheedthediffer,;entnatureofrevisionaljurisdiction andthelapseoftheinterestofanapplicanttopursueacaseafter intimationoftheintention toabandonthecase. Leavewouldberefused onlyinanexceptionalcase. 10 -
- 15 5)Inthiscase,"had thenoticeconcerningA.P.beenbrought tothe at tentionoftheCourtthejudgmentwouldbelimited tomattersotherthan *thoseaffecting hispromotion. , 6 )The.CivilProcedureRulesareintheirentirety modelledontheprem isethaterrorsofalitigantintheprocessmayberemediedupon goodcause. Thereshould,inprinciple,begreater amenity torectify errorswhere they don'toriginatefromthe partiesoranyoneoftherh, asinthiscase,Ord. 25,' 1 r.6oftheCivilProcedureRules,confers poweron theCourttocorrecter-' rors injudgment arising either froman accidental sliporomission.The principle underliningOrd.-25,r.6 wouldbeneutralizedif theCourtwas powerlessinthepresentsituation. ",.. . .- · . .,'„-, 20 *' ' 2« . '* * *. ' c ' Directions thatrecourseasfar asA.P. isconcernedbedeemedashavingbeen dismissed. ' ' . Casesreferredto: Republi&riloucaandOthers
(1984)3Ci'JR. 241; Λ t . ' . · . · V " . — : . : t- . . .».i ' ! , ' • • • . ν . · .r '" ' - · . ; Λ Ele^aeriaaisv:CwrmHote(s'(1985^ ' > , " ' . "• ! · ' . -• t * ' ι - . - · . Decision620/51 ofGreekCouncilofState. 1613 • ? r. ;t •*" » Polycarpou v. CY.T.A.
(1988)Application. Application byinterestedpartyAndreasPamelastoremedyan errorintheprocessoccasionedbyanomissionoftheRegistryof theSupremeCourt. G. Georghiou for A.Papacharalambous and P.Angelides, 5 fortheapplicant. N. Hadjioannou, for therespondents andinterested partyA. Pantelas NoappearanceforapplicantinCaseNo. 504/
- Cur. adv.vult. 10 PIKISJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Atissueistheamenity of a Courtexercisingrevisionaljurisdiction underArt. 146.1to remedy anerrorintheprocessoccasioned byanomissionofthe RegistryoftheSupremeCourt.Itwascausedbythefailureofthe RegistrytobringtothenoticeoftheCourtawrittenmotion filed 15 bytheapplicantbeforedeliveryofjudgmentsignifying thewithdrawaloftherecourseagainstoneoftheinterestedparties,namely,AndreasPantelas;tantamountingtotheabandonmentoftherecourse so far as it was directed against the promotion of the aforementioned interestedparty.Reference tothefactssurround- 20 ingtheerrorwillilluminatethenatureoftheproblemandserveto identify thelegalandfactual issuescallingforresolution. AndreasPolycarpou,theapplicantinRecourse502/87,sought thereview with theobject ofannulmentof adecisionofCYTA involving the promotion of 13interested parties to the post of 25 Section Leader'B'(TechnicalDepartment)includingthatofAndreasPantelas.Thehearing* oftherecoursewasconcludedon * Thecase wasconsolidatedfor purposes ofhearingwithRecourse584/
- 1614 3 CX.R. Polycarpou'v. CY.TA. Pikisi J. 1st July, 1988 andjudgment was reserved.Itwas given on 15th July,'1988, resulting in the setting aside of the subjudice deci sion andsequential annulment of thepromotionof theinterested parties,including thatof Andreas Pamelas.: ' " M '' UnknowntotheCourtatthetimethatjudgment was delivered, theapplicantsubmittedTon9thJuly, 1988,awritten1noticeinthe causeJof the recourse'indicating the withdrawal of the action against Andreas Pantelas.As amatter'offact the Registry didnot brihgthe abovenoticetotheattention of theCourtuntilafter the lodgment of the complaint by Andreas Pantelas respecting the outcome of the case. The notice was'entered in the'file, as we f wereinformed;on·10thAugust, 1988.ThereuponIdirectedthat thecomplaintof Andreas Pantelas.beadjourned inopen Court'invitingatthesametimeargumentfrom aUconcernecVas tothe im plicationsof theomission of theRegistry ontheoufcome of*the case.-All wereof onemindthattheerror of the'Registry should riot prejudice theposition of Andreas Pantelas.Theomission to listthenoticebefore theCourtforconsiderationhaddirect repefcussions'on the outcomeof theactionbecause ontheauthorityof 'Republic v. Louca'and Others
(1984)3 CUR:'241 it can be predicatedwithcertaintythattherecourseto1the^extentthatitWas directedJagainst Andreas Pantelaswould have beendismissed. In Louca (supra)theFull'Benchof theSupremeCourt'decidedthat theapplicantinproceedings for thereviewof administrative ac tionhaswhatmaybetermedaninherentrighttoabandonthepro ceeding atanystage;including theappeal.Afortiori thesamear> 1 plies to theabandonmentof pan of thecause atissue.Theratio emerging from themajority judgments'* inthecaseofLouca (su pra)is thattheabandonmentof therecourse at any stageof the proceedings, including theappeal,deprives theapplicantof ale gitimateinteresttopursuetherecourseany further. • .» '. : : •' / ' · ' r ι cJ' : \r t "' "' . ' • .(... ' ''•"", '• · ' . {'*• " . ,.' *InaseparatejudgmentIexplainedmyreasonswhy leaveof the Courtisnecessary for 1 the abandonmentof arecoursewhenthe matterissubjudice onappeal. 1615 PikisJ. Polycarpou v.CY.TA.
(1988)Greekcaselawandjurisprudencesupportsthatthepursuerofa recoursefor thereviewof administrativeaction hasaninherent right to abandon by a written ororal motion arecourse atany stage prior to theconclusion of thehearing*. Aconflict isdiscernible respecting the right of an applicant to withdraw a re- 5 courseafter theconclusionofahearinginviewofthefact thata litigant hasnorighttoaddresstheCourt after theconclusionof thehearingof theaction.Weshallnotenterthecontroversy for thecaseofLouca(supra)makesitclearthattherighttoaddress 10 theCourtforthepurposeofcommunicatingtheabandonmentofa recourseisnotfettered inthewaysuggestedbysomeGreekcases;alitigantmayaddresstheCourtforthepurposeof signifying the abandonment of acaseatanytimepriortothedeliveryofa judgment. Rule 18of the Supreme Constitutional Court Rules, 15 1962makesapplicabletheCivilProcedureRulestotheextentthat they arecompatiblewiththenatureoftherevisionalprocessand so far ascircumstances permit. Ord. 15of theCivil Procedure RulesrequirestheleaveoftheCourtforthewithdrawalofaproceedingafter thedeliveryofdefencethattakestheformofoppo- 20 sitioninproceedingsunderArt.146.1.Thehistorical background to this adjectival enactment and the purpose it is designed to serve,wereexplainedinEleftheriadesv.CyprusHotels
(1985)1 C.L.R. 677.Therule isintended, ifIcanput itinanutshell,to vestpowerintheCourtsuchastorenderittheeffective overseer 25 ofthejudicialprocess. In applying Ord. 15,r.l, theCourt should nodoubtheedthe different natureofrevisionaljurisdictionandthelapseoftheinterestofanapplicanttopursueacaseafterintimationoftheintentiontoabandonthecase.OnlyinamostexceptionalcasecouldI 30 contemplatetheCourtrefusing leavetowithdrawarecourseafter a declaration on the part of theapplicant to abandon the case wholly or in part. It can, therefore, bepresumed with asmuch certainty as one can express on an ex port facto contempla- 35 *SeeCase620/51;Tsatsos"ApplicationforAnnulment",3rdEd.,p.368;Kyriacopoulos,"GreekAdministrativeLaw",SpecificPart,Vol.*C', p. 129. 1616 3.C.L.R. Polycarpou v. CY.TA. PikisJ. tion of a decision that had the notice of 9th July, 1988,been drawntotheattentionoftheCourt,thecaseagainstAndreasPantelaswouldhavebeendismissedand theissuesarisingforconsiderationinthejudgmentwillbelimitedtothoseotherthanmat5 tersaffecting thepromotionof AndreasPantelas.Istherepower torectify theeffects oftheomissionoftheRegistry?Thisisthe nextandfinalquestionweshallendeavourtodetermine.TheCivilProcedureRulesare"intheirentiretymodelledonthepremise thaterrorsofalitigantintheprocessmayberemediedupongood 10 cause.Thisisa sound foundation safeguarding theinterestsof justice that require that substance should takeprecedenceover form unlessthedisregardof theRulesissuchastothreaten the courseofjustice.Thereshould,inprinciple,begreateramenityto rectify errorswheretheydon'toriginatefrom thepartiesorany15 oneofthem,asinthiscase.Ord.25,r.6,of theCivilProcedure Rules,conferspowerontheCourttocorrecterrorsinajudgment arising eitherfroman accidental sliporomission. Study of the application of theEnglishcounterpartof thisrule,notably,Ord. 28,r.l1 (OldRulesoftheSupremeCourt)suggestthatwidedis20 cretion resides with the Court,to correct errors occurring in a judgment as.aresultof whichthejudgmentdoesnotreflect the trueintentionoftheCourtorfails todefinetheextentandrange ofthejudgment.InnoneofthedecidedcaseswastheCourtconcernedtodetermine anissuesimilartotheonehereconsidered. 25 Nonetheless the principle underlining Ord. 25,r.6, would be neutralizediftheCourtwaspowerlessinthepresentsituationto ensurethattheinterestedpartyisnotprejudiced'by theomission oftheRegistryorfor thatmattertoallow thecausetoremainin being,notwithstanding its abandonment bythepursuer.Consi30 deringthathadthenoticeof9thJulybeenbroughttothenoticeof theCourtpriortothedeliveryofjudgment,thequestionsatissue wouldhavebeenconfinedtomattersotherthanthoseconcerning AndreasPantelas,inexerciseof thepowersvested intheCourt underOrd.25,r.6,1herebydirectthatthejudgmentbeconfined 35 accordingly and that Recourse 502/87,sofar asit wasdirected againstAndreasPantelas,bedeemedashavingbeendismissed. Orderaccordingly. 1617