A Personal and Professional Milestone in the Defence of Fairness and Due Process
On 4 July 2025, the Cyprus Court of Appeal issued a unanimous and principled judgment that overturned an unjust ruling of the District Court. The case concerned the fundamental right of persons who are affected by court orders issued without notice (ex parte) to be heard in the proceedings, even if they are not joined as parties to the interim application.
This judgment marks a landmark precedent in civil procedure, and a moment of professional pride for our firm, Phoebus, Christos Clerides & Associates LLC, which had the privilege to represent the affected individuals.
The Background: Far-Reaching Ex Parte Orders
The appeal arose in the context of interim relief proceedings, where the first-instance court had granted a series of ex parte orders without notifying certain persons whose interests were directly and indirectly affected. These included:
- Freezing orders (Mareva)
- Gagging orders
- Disclosure orders (Norwich Pharmacal)
- Anti-enforcement injunctions
The persons affected were not named in the applications, nor were they served with any of the relevant documents. The orders were obtained unilaterally, without any opportunity for them to be heard—even though their interests were affected.
A gagging order was issued in addition to prevent them for being informed of the existence of the orders and proceedings. However, upon accidentally discovering the existence of the orders, the Appellants sought to appear and file objections. However, the District Court refused, holding that only joined parties had standing to object, and applied the wrong procedural rules and with a completely wrong understanding on when parties are allowed to be joined to challenge orders affecting them under the new 2023 Civil Procedure Rules.
The Legal Question: Do Affected Parties not part of the injunction proceedings Have the Right to Be Heard? The Court of Appeal’s Judgment: A Victory for Procedural Fairness
The Court of Appeal agreed with our arguments in full. The judgment, delivered unanimously, clarified that:
- Affected persons may be heard without being joined as parties, and the court has discretion to treat them as “respondents” for purposes of the interim proceedings;
- The right to object is grounded not only in procedural rules, but also in constitutional guarantees — particularly the right to a fair trial and the right to be heard (audi alteram partem);
- The requirement of being “affected” does not demand a direct impact; indirect or legal consequences suffice;
- The District Court’s restrictive interpretation was erroneous, and had the effect of unfairly excluding individuals whose rights and property were targeted.
Why This Matters: Legal and Practical Implications
This ruling has profound implications for litigation practice in Cyprus:
- Non-parties are not voiceless, especially when their legal interests are implicated in ex parte measures.
- The Court drew a clear distinction between joinder of parties in a claim and standing to object to interim relief.
- The threshold of “affected” is now clearly understood to include a wide range of legal or factual prejudice, including disclosure orders against them, loss of income, or interference with beneficial interests.
- The Court’s approach ensures that procedural justice is not sacrificed for procedural rigidity.
Final Balancing: Gagging Orders vs. the Right to a Fair Trial
In its closing analysis, the Court of Appeal acknowledged the respondent's interest in maintaining the effectiveness of the gagging orders, which aimed to restrict access to sensitive information. However, this interest was weighed against the appellants’ constitutional right to a fair hearing, as protected under Article 30 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR. Drawing on leading domestic and Strasbourg jurisprudence, the Court reaffirmed the principle of equality of arms, noting that a litigant must have a reasonable opportunity to present their case and respond to the evidence — including access to the affidavit filed in support of the ex parte application.
The Court found that no concrete prejudice had been demonstrated by the respondent that would justify overriding the appellants’ rights. In particular, no specific harm or risk was articulated that would result from granting them access to the evidence.
Accordingly, the Court held that procedural fairness must prevail, and that the appellants’ right to object — with full access to the application and supporting affidavit — outweighed any speculative concerns of disclosure. The Court exercised its discretion to grant leave to object, stating that this approach ensured a faster, more efficient, and just resolution, in line with the primary objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules.
A Personal Note: Principle Over Formalism
This appeal was about more than a point of procedure. It was about ensuring access to justice — about affirming that no person should be restrained, accused, or prejudiced by court orders without having the right to respond.
The lower court’s refusal to allow intervention — simply because the individuals were not formal parties to the injunction proceedings — was, respectfully, an affront to the principles of natural justice and the right to equality of arms. The Court of Appeal rightly reversed that error.
This case reflects our firm’s ongoing commitment to vigorous, principled, and strategic advocacy.
Conclusion: A Precedent to Guide the Future
The Cyprus Court of Appeal has now authoritatively stated that affected non-parties have a right to be heard. Procedural rules must serve the goals of fairness, access, and balance — not obstruct them.
This decision restores faith in the judicial process and ensures that justice is not only done, but seen to be done.