Cyprus Law | Breach of Contract Decision Challenged

Cyprus Law | Breach of Contract Decision ChallengedWITHOUT PREJUDICE

Cyprus Law | Breach of Contract Decision Challenged

So the support group on another page that charges for its support, and never advertises it’s wares, will certainly now have it’s work cut out.

British people with memorandums on other British people’s property are ‘scum’, as we have now discovered in the words of one young man; an extremely young man to be a retiree. He didn’t know there was an injunction on the site even though his interest was registered after the first injunction (14.10.2008). For those who do not realise, an injunction is the start of the process to achieving a memorandum. Either he had very bad advice or he chose to ignore the fact.

That, it seems, is now irrelevant. If you are one of the thousands advised to put an injunction on other people’s property, and that injunction became a memorandum, please now know that not only will you become instantly unpopular, but you are also vulnerable to venomous attacks. Forget the legal advice you took, the court proceedings you funded, the system you followed.

Yesterday proved that your court order can be challenged. Two advocates asked for and received leave to challenge the Breach of Contract decision at the District Court on the 6th November 2009. This meant that had she not withdrawn the case, Pauline Read would have two further cases under her belt. Did her original advocate who did the Breach of Contract case warn her that this was possible…no. Did the advocate who took her along the Mandamus route at the outset warn her this was possible…no. He did however mention last Friday the possibility that the advocate acting for the owners might try to have the original judgement overturned.

Yesterday the sequence of events leading up to Pauline Read withdrawing her case were carefully choreographed.   The decision to withdraw the case had been made well in advance. However, it seemed ‘poetic’ justice not to inform the advocate who had pushed for this action, even offering to pay the stamp duty and do it for nothing, and who had, because they were no longer friends, given a ” pay me or I withdraw” ultimatum.  The reply from Pauline apparently was, “I am not paying.”
So the die was cast, Pauline played her cards close to her chest. She knew that once the advocate had told the Judges she would be called into chambers. This happened, her advocate was in there too at this time. The Head Judge told Pauline the situation and asked if she need time to find a new advocate, to which Pauline said, “No, I wish to formally withdraw the case.”  What followed was recounted to you in yesterday’s article straight from the horse’s mouth.
So the precedent which requires Government departments to do their duty has been set. The Mandamus is the answer. However I caution anyone going this route to be sure you know that the advantage will be yours.
Power to the people
Citizen Smith
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.