A recent Limassol District Court decision serves as a useful reminder that the courts will rarely resort to public policy grounds for refusing the recognition of arbitral awards unless presented with cogent evidence. In addition, the courts are prepared to demonstrate the necessary flexibility dictated by modern commercial practices in examining the imperative requirements of Article IV of the New York Convention in a manner which will not hamper the convention's underlying objectives.
The Limassol Rent Control Court recently dismissed an application regarding the eviction of a tenant from a leasehold. Since it was ruled that the first and second applicants had never owned the property, they were not entitled to file the eviction application. However, the court awarded damages in relation to unpaid rent to the third applicant (who became the actual owner of the property after the application).
In a recent Limassol District Court case, the applicants applied to the court to set aside a Cypriot court order which had allowed the ex parte recognition and enforcement of a Dutch judgment pursuant to the EU Brussels Regulation or, alternatively, the recast EU Brussels Regulation. The applicants raised several arguments to support their application – in particular, the fact that the Netherlands judgment allowed for the registration and execution of the arbitral award only in the Netherlands.
The Nicosia Rent Control Court recently ruled on the outstanding rent of a statutory tenant. The court held that a provision for the increase of rent provided for in a tenancy agreement does not apply once the tenancy is converted into a statutory tenancy. However, by interpreting the terms of the tenancy agreement (which had been terminated in this case), the court concluded that it had not provided for an increase in rent during the first tenancy period.
The Supreme Court recently dismissed an appeal of a first-instance judgment which had applied the well-established principle that arbitral award registrations are a formality wherein district courts do not proceed to examine the merits or substance of the award. The Supreme Court rejected all of the appellant's arguments, dismissed the appeal in its entirety and endorsed the first-instance court's approach, which had been based on well-established case law.
Law 8(I)/2018 came into force in July 2018, amending the Transfer and Mortgage of Immovable Property Law. The new legislation was applied for the first time in a recent Nicosia District Court case, which is considered to be of great importance in assessing how the courts will interpret the new law in future. The case concerned an auction procedure which had been initiated by the sending of the relevant documents and notices to the mortgagor, which filed a lawsuit against Hellenic Bank to suspend a foreclosure procedure.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that only part of a court judgment that had upheld an arbitrator's decision would be set aside. The appellants had raised a number of objections in their appeal, including that the summons to recognise and enforce the arbitral award had been filed improperly as the hearing had not been conducted in the same manner as a lawsuit, the parties had not agreed to refer the dispute to an arbitrator and the arbitrator had not had the legal authority to issue a mortgage disposal order.
In a recent Supreme Court case, the appellants appealed to the court to set aside or annul the first-instance court judgment which had upheld an arbitrator's decision. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants' position on the matter and stated that the first-instance court had failed to deal with the examination of the legitimacy of the arbitration proceedings and the manner in which the arbitrator had conducted the proceedings.
In a recent Limassol District Court case, the applicants applied for the dismissal and replacement of an arbitrator. They argued that the relationship between the arbitrator and the respondents' main witness in the arbitration proceedings and his brother would lead a reasonable person to find that there was a real likelihood of bias. As a result, the applicants argued that the relationship between the parties constituted misconduct in arbitration proceedings.
In a recent Limassol District Court case, the applicants requested the registration and enforcement in Cyprus of a Russian arbitral award. Τhe court found that the applicants had failed to provide evidence of whether Russia was a contracting state to the New York Convention and that the award's translation did not fulfil the convention's requirements. As a result, the application to register and enforce the arbitral award was rejected.
The Nicosia District Court recently issued an order which referred a dispute to arbitration. The order stipulated that the arbitrator should deliver a final decision within nine months. One of the parties applied to the court for an extension of the arbitration procedure. The court rejected the application on the ground that only the arbitrator had the right to apply for such an extension.
The Limassol District Court recently concluded that an appeal pending before the English courts does not suspend an order's enforcement or diminish the validity of an arbitral award. The applicants had applied for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued in May 2016. The court held that the order was final and that there had been no abuse of process; the respondents' request to set aside the award was therefore rejected.
In a recent Limassol District Court case, the applicants applied for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The respondents had previously applied to the Cypriot courts to set aside and annul the arbitral award pursuant to the International Commercial Arbitration Law. In their objection to the application for the recognition of the award, the respondents advanced additional grounds to those raised in their earlier application to annul the award.
The District Court of Limassol recently issued a judgment in relation to an application filed by the Cooperative Bank of Limassol in 2016. The applicants had sought a court order to cross-examine the affiant on certain paragraphs of his affidavit, which supported a 2014 application for the registration and enforcement of an arbitral award in Cyprus.
The applicant in a recent case applied to the Limassol District Court for the registration and enforcement of an arbitral award which had been issued by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). This case sheds light on the interpretation and application of Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention and clarifies that an arbitral award, including an award for costs, is registrable before the courts even in cases where the LCIA has no jurisdiction.
In a recent Supreme Court case, the appellants challenged a first-instance court judgment which had refused the registration and execution in Cyprus of a foreign arbitral award issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court. The appellants claimed that the first-instance judge had erred in concluding that the requirement under Article IV(1)(a) of the New York Convention had not been fulfilled.
A recent Supreme Court decision concerned an application to set aside an admiralty action based on the arbitration clause in the guarantee agreement signed by the parties concerned. The court relied on the doctrine of abandonment and decided that the arbitration clause had been abandoned with the parties' consent. As a result, the defendants were estopped from claiming that they had not abandoned their right to activate the arbitration clause and their claim was dismissed.
Lukoil Mid-East Limited filed an application with the Nicosia District Court for the recognition and enforcement in Cyprus of a London Court of International Arbitration award. Terra Seis Cyprus Limited objected on the grounds that the substantive and procedural prerequisites for the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in Cyprus had not been met. The court thus considered whether the requirements under Section IV of the New York Convention had been satisfied.
In a recent district court case the applicants applied to register and enforce an arbitral decision issued by the Russian International Commercial Arbitration Court. The respondents argued that recognition of the award was contrary to public policy, but this was rejected by the court. Practitioners should consider how rarely the public policy defence is used and ensure that they can prove the existence of exceptional circumstances which warrant court intervention and protection.
In a recent Nicosia District Court case the applicants applied to register and enforce a Russian International Commercial Arbitration Court arbitral award. The court examined whether the applicants had complied with the requirements of Article IV of the New York Convention. It decided that there was no ground for refusing enforcement and allowed the application for recognition and enforcement of the award in Cyprus.