(1989)1989January 7 (STYLIANIDES.J.) BALMMARITIMECOMPANYLIMITED, Plaintiffs, v. BIOCHEMIER.O.S.E. LIMITED, Defendants. (AdmiraltyActionNo. 52/84). Admiralty—Practice—TheAdmiralty Jurisdiction Order, 1893, Rule 237—TheEnglishRulesapplicableinvirtuethereofaretheRulesin forceonthedayprecedingIndependenceday. Admiralty—Practice—Applications (interlocutory)—The order of addressingtheCourt—Incaseswherenooralevidenceisadduced, 5 butonlytheaffidavitsandthecross-examination ofthedeponents, thepartyonwhomtheburdenofprooflies,istheersttoaddressthe Court—Inapplicationswhereoralevidenceisheardthepracticeis tofollowthepractice applicablefortrials, i.e. theparty, who had calledthelastwitness, isthefirsttoaddresstheCourt. \Q ThisisanapplicationtosetasideaJudgmentobtainedbydefault ofappearance.Therespondents-plaintiffs adducedoralevidence.In thetightofthepracticefollowedbytheCourttheCourtruledthatthe respondents-plaintiffs, whohadcalledthelastwitness,shouldbethe firsttoaddresstheCourt. 15 Orderaccordingly. Casesreferredto: Asimenosv. Paraskava
(1982)1 C.L.R. 145. Application. Application by defendants for an order setting aside the 20 judgment given against them in default and for leave to appear and defend the action. M.Montanios, for applicants-defendants. 42 1C.L.R. BalmMaritimeCo.v.BlocbemleR.O.S.E. L. Papaphilippou, for respondents-plaintiffs. Cur.adv. wit. STYLIANIDES J. read the following decision. In the present case Judgment was given by default of appearance. The 5 defendants by written application by summons, based on Rules 41,44,46,203-212 and237oftheRulesoftheSupremeCourtin its Admiralty Jurisdiction, sought an order of the Court setting asidetheJudgmentgivenindefault ofthedefendants' appearance andpermitting the defendants toappear inanddefend the action. 10 The facts relied upon were set out in a long affidavit sworn by NicosMavrokordatos, Directorof the defendants. The plaintiffs-respondents filed notice of opposition, the facts relied upon in opposition were set forth in an affidavit sworn by their Director.The applicantsand the respondents filed with their 15 mutual consent and the leave of the Court supplementary affidavits. Bothdeponentswerecross-examinedand re-examined irilength. On the application of Mr. Papaphilippou for the respondentsplaintiffs, PeriklisDemetriou,theDirectoroftheCyprian Seaways 20 AgenciesLtd.,gaveoralevidence astowhom theyrepresentedin thetransaction, after leaveand direction ofthisCourt. Counsel disagreed astowho would address the Court first. Mr. Montanios submitted that counsel for the plaintiffsrespondents should address first as he called the last witness. He 25 relied on the established practiceof the Court and the old English Rules, Order 36, Rule 36, which regulates the summing up by counsel in trials of actions without a jury. He, also, invited the Court to draw guidance from Order 33, Rule 7{a)(ii) of the Civil Procedure Rules. 30 Mr. Haviaras, on the other side, submitted that the party upon whomtheburden ofproof liesshould addressthe Courtfirst.This wasanapplicationandnotanaction.Hereferred toRules116and - 142of theCyprusAdmiralty Rules. The present proceedings are an application under Rule 203 35 which provides that a party desiring to obtain an order from the CourtorJudgeshallordinarilymakeoralapplicationforthesame, buttheCourtorJudgemay,ontheapplication beingmade,direct thatawrittenapplicationbefurnished. Evidenceonanapplication 43 StylianidesJ. BalmMaritimeCo.v. Biochemie R.O.S.E.
(1989)for an order shall in general be given by oral examination of witnesses, but the mode or modes in which evidence shall be given,onanyapplication,maybedeterminedeitherbyconsentof theparties,orbydirection oftheCourtorJudge (Rule 116). The deponentsattended theCourtfor cross-examination byorder of theCourtasprovidedinRule117. 5 Theonlyrule applicable inthisapplication isRule208,which reads:«Whentheapplicationcomesonforhearing,theCourtor Judge, after hearingtheparties, or, inthe absence ofanyof io them,onproofthatthenoticeoftheapplicationhasbeenduly served,maymakesuchorderasshallseem fit.» Where no provision is contained in the Cyprus Admiralty Rules of 1893, under Rule 237 the practice of the Admiralty DivisionoftheHighCourtofJusticeinEnglandsofarasthesame 15 shallappeartobeapplicable,shallbe followed. InAsimenosv.Paraskeva
(1982)1 C.L.R.145,itwasheldthat theRulesoftheSupremeCourt,whichwereinforceandapplied intheAdmiralty DivisionoftheHighCourtofJusticeinEngland on the day preceding the Independence Day, are the ones applicable by this Court in the exercise of its Admiralty Jurisdiction,totheextentcontemplated byRule237. TheEnglishOrder36,Rule36relatestospeechesupontrialof actions.Thereisnospecificprovisionastotheorderofspeeches inapplicationsormotions. ItisthewellsettledpracticeoftheCourtsinthiscountrythatin applications where no oral evidence is adduced, except the affidavits and the cross-examination of thedeponents, the party on whomtheburden ofproof liesisthefirstpartytoaddressthe Court.InapplicationsinotherjurisdictionsofthisCourtandofthe 30 Courts of this country in general, where other oral evidence is heard,thoughtheRulesaresilent,thepracticeandprocedurefor thetrialofactionsisfollowedandapplied. AtrialCourt inconductingthe hearingofa caseanddirecting thevariousphasesoftrialusuallyhastomakeanumberofrulings. 35 In general these questions are to be decided more upon what justice to the parties requires than upon any direct rules of practice.Thisreflectsthepracticewhichisappropriateandrightto follow. 44 20 25 1C.L.R. BalmMaritimeCo.v. BiochemieR O S E . StyttanldesJ. I see no reason why I should depart from the practice in applications in general. The party who called the last witness shouldsumupand addressthe Courtand counsel for the other partytoreply.Thisisconsonanttojusticeandconvenience. 5 Idirect, therefore, that counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs whocalledthelastwitnesstoaddresstheCourtfirstandcounsel forme applicants-defendants toreply. Orderaccordingly. 45