Supreme Court of Cyprus, First Instance Jurisdiction
Civil Application No. 240/2025, David J., 30 June 2026
The Applicants filed an application by summons before the Supreme Court of Cyprus, exercising its First Instance jurisdiction, for the issuance of a prerogative writ of Certiorari, seeking the annulment of an ex parte interim order issued on 10 September 2025 by the District Court of Limassol, granted in support of intended Liechtenstein proceedings, without any directions for the commencement of those proceedings. The application arose out of a complex, multi-jurisdictional dispute concerning control of two Liechtenstein-registered foundations and their Cypriot and Polish affiliates. This judgment marks the first occasion on which a Cypriot court has authoritatively ruled on the scope and mandatory character of Part 25.2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules of 2023 (“CPR”) in the context of applications for interim relief in support of foreign proceedings.
The Applicants were represented by our firm, with the matter handled by George Z. Georgiou, Romanos V. Loizides, Agathi Zervou and Tatiana Kouri.
A. The Central Legal Issue: Part 25.2(3) of the Cypriot CPR
The most significant and decisive aspect of the judgment concerns the proper interpretation of Part 25.2(3) of the CPR, which provides that “when the court grants an interim remedy before the commencement of proceedings, the court gives directions requiring a claim to be commenced.”
The Respondent argued that Part 25.2(3) applied only where the claim was to be filed before the same Cypriot court granting the relief, and that cases of foreign proceedings governed by Part 25.4, fell outside its scope entirely. The Court firmly rejected this, confirming that Part 25.4 does not establish an independent or parallel regulatory regime detached from the other provisions of Part 25; the conditions set by Part 25.2(3) apply a priori also in cases where the proceedings are to be filed outside the jurisdiction. The existence of the specific carve-out in Part 25.2(4) for pre-action disclosure orders was held to confirm this: had Part 25.4 cases been excluded wholesale, that carve-out would have been entirely superfluous.
B. The English CPR Position: A Deliberate Departure
The Respondent relied on Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Bestfort Development LLP [2015] EWHC 1955 (Ch) to argue that an undertaking, rather than a court direction, sufficed in foreign proceedings cases. The Court rejected this, noting that the corresponding English provision, CPR 25.4, did not provide that “this Part also applies” in its entirety and also in cases of foreign proceedings, as the Cypriot CPR expressly formulate it. The Court further observed that even after the 2025 amendment, the structure and wording of the English CPR continue to differ from the Cypriot regulatory framework on the matter under discussion, confirming that Cyprus has adopted a stricter framework. As for the English undertakings practice, even in English law the connection of the interim remedy with the obligation to commence the main proceedings is considered necessary, this exceptional, provisional remedy cannot exist disconnected from the “certainty” of pursuing the claim in support of which it was granted.
C. Consequences of Non-Compliance: A Jurisdictional Defect
Most significantly, the Court elevated non-compliance with Part 25.2(3) to a jurisdictional defect: the lower Court's failure cannot be downgraded to a mere or insubstantial procedural irregularity, it constitutes a failure to comply with an essential prerequisite that reflects upon the assumption of jurisdiction, with the result that it has a decisive effect on the lawfulness of the issued order, rendering it susceptible to annulment by way of prerogative writ of Certiorari. Crucially, any subsequent filing of proceedings abroad cannot remedy the original failure, in the absence of such directions, the necessary jurisdictional foundation upon which the order was issued never existed.
D. Significance of the judgment
This is the first time a Cypriot Court has authoritatively ruled on the scope and mandatory character of Part 25.2(3) of the 2023 CPR in the context of interim relief in support of foreign proceedings. Therefore, the judgment provides clear guidance to practitioners that:
- Interim relief in support of foreign proceedings is not merely a free-standing remedy; the Cyprus court granting the relief must issue mandatory directions for the commencement of those proceedings within a defined and reasonable timeframe.
- A general statement of intent in a supporting affidavit or a vague undertaking to commence proceedings abroad, is insufficient.
- Non-compliance is not a mere procedural irregularity. The obligation under Rule 25.2(3) is a precondition to the lawful assumption of jurisdiction; its absence cannot be remedied by any subsequent filing of proceedings abroad, rendering the order susceptible to certiorari for want of jurisdiction.
We note that the judgment is one of four judgments issued by the Supreme Court on the same date, in four separate but related applications, all yielding an identical result. The four decisions collectively confirm the Court's consistent and unequivocal approach to the mandatory requirements of Part 25.2(3) of the CPR in the context of interim relief granted in support of foreign proceedings.