Cyprus Law | Way Open to Overturn Memorandums

Cyprus Law | Way Open to Overturn MemorandumsWITHOUT PREJUDICE

Cyprus Law | Way Open to Overturn Memorandums

What a very interesting few days we have all had in north Cyprus.

The Tapu have now realised they cannot ignore court orders. So the mandamus has achieved its goal.

Clearly, and has she has stated in many of her blogs, Pauline Read never expected to receive the award she won on the 6th November 2009. What other reason would she have had to join with the Kulaksiz 5 litigants. Despite some ignorant comments from the uninformed that she was trying to get her villa back plus the award, she knew that was just hate speak. She knew she could have one or the other, not both. Some people are so ill-informed they engage their mouths before their brains.

It became evident to her that the ‘powers that be’ were never going to allow her to receive the court award and the artful changes to the properties mentioned in the award, that have appeared after her first search and first interim injunction of September 2008, bear witness to this.

However, that is looking backwards which is a pointless exercise. She has made it clear that she will co-operate with the advocates for the owners at Arapkoy to remove the memorandums and she will await their contact. She does however make it clear, she will only deal with proper advocates.

The biggest lesson learned from this exercise is that a Government department is accountable and the Mandamus proved this. From refusing to do anything, the forcing of this issue has resolved the situation for the owners and Pauline Read. She now knows that she was right in her claim that she would never get the award. She must now rely on the Kulaksiz 5 case and she is glad to have had the foresight to join in with the other owners there.

A secondary bonus to this is the emergence of two advocates applying for permission, and being given leave by the High Court, to mount a case to overturn the decision of the lower court which found in Pauline Read’s favour in her Breach of Contract case that started in September 2008 and concluded in November 2009. This opens a bigger can of worms than anyone can even begin to imagine. Ironically the second advocate brought on board is Akan Kursat and he is following the example set by the advocate for the K5, who are also at this moment in the lower court trying to do the self same thing; overturn an existing ruling from the lower court of the 20th November 2008. A mute point I am sure, but Mr Kursat does act for the bank in a case in which Pauline Read is involved. Her records on the Breach of Contract were entered in evidence when he tried and failed to have her removed from this case. My point being, is there a potential ‘conflict of interest’ in his being involved in this attempt to overturn the Breach of Contract verdict? As I say, a mute point since it will now not be necessary. Now, I wonder who recommended his services to the owner, rhetorical question, I know the answer.

The big picture just got bigger. All those British buyers at Amaranta valley who took blanket memorandums on the site could find themselves being challenged by the other buyers who did not. The land owner at the Karmi/Robb site could have his court decision, when he got the memorandum, challenged. Any purchaser who has found themselves with a memorandum on their property could challenge the court case giving the memorandum. Why, even the Tutuska purchasers whose builder Tutuska had memorandum after a memorandum put on their property because of this serial debtor could, and should, try to have the verdict giving these memorandums overturned.

The process seems simple enough. Get your advocate to go to the High Court and apply for leave to mount a case to overturn the court decision that put a memorandum on your property.

Power to the people

Citizen Smith

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.