Execution of judgments after the lapse of material time
Share
The judgement creditor, as defined under Order 40 r. 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, who claims to be entitled to execution of a Court judgement may, even after ten (10) years have lapsed from the date of issuance of the Court judgement, apply to the Court with a relevant application to obtain leave to enforce the judgement.
The abovementioned duration of Court judgement has been extended from ten (10) to twelve (12) years pursuant to the Civil Procedure (Amending) (No. 1) Procedural Regulation of 2020, which was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus on 27/03/2020.
Obtaining however, leave to renew a Court judgement after the expiration of a period of twelve (12) years from the date of issuance of the Court judgement, is incumbent upon the fulfillment of additional criteria set out through the applicable case law.
Order 48 r. 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules has been a subject of examination in a series of judgements of the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court judgement of Stavrinidis v. Bank of Cyprus Public Company Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 367/12, dated 17.1.2019, the principles governing the exercise of the discretion of the Court during the examination of applications for renewal of the execution of Court judgements, as defined by the relevant case law, were summarised and also repeated in the recent Supreme Court judgement of 1. Orfanides and ors v. S. & G. Securities and General Finance Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 302/2013, dated 8.4.2021, and can be summarised as follows:
Determination of the date of issuance of the Court judgement and the initial judgement debt.
The judgement debt balance which is still due as of the date of the application. Any disagreement by the judgment creditor with regards to the outstanding amount of the judgement debt is not a reason for not granting leave for enforcement however, such assertion may be examined at the stage of any enforcement measures.
The judgement creditor is entitled to the execution of the Court judgment.
A satisfactory explanation for the delay in the execution of the Court judgment so that any delay observed is not attributable to a malicious or abusive conduct on the part of the judgement creditor. In Orfanides (above) it was stated that, in agreement with the first instance Court, it is crucial when considering the criterion of delay that the enforcement measure having been taken at the time the decision was in force rather than the enforcement measure taking place at the time of the relevant application.
The renewal of the Court judgement does not create an adverse effect on the judgement debtor. An adverse effect can be considered the event where the judgement creditor leads the judgement debtor to believe that his inaction means that he is not going to execute the issued Court judgement. As stated in Orphanides case above, an assertion that one of the judgement debtors were not able to repay the Court judgment does not relieve or release the other debtors from their obligation to satisfy the Court judgement issued against them and this cannot constitute an adverse effect against them.
The Civil Procedure (Amending) (No. 1) Procedural Regulation of 2020 can be found here.
For more information please visit our website microsite on Banking & Finance or email Mrs. Georgia Karamalli at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
