The Judicial Practice Code was recently amended to provide that no judge, whether sitting alone or as a member of a panel of judges of an adjudicating court, can hear a case in which a party is represented by a lawyer who is a family member of the judge or works in the same firm or office as a family member of the judge. The recent media focus in Cyprus on the alleged impartiality of certain judges was the impetus behind the changes.
The Supreme Court recently overturned a first-instance court's decision to reject a request to amend a statement of claim under Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules on the grounds that the amendment amounted to a new cause of action. The Supreme Court found that the proposed amendments merely referenced actions by the defendants which supported their existing claim and did not amount to a new cause of action.
The minister of finance recently announced that the statutory rate of interest on judgments pursuant to Article 33 of the Courts of Justice Law has been reduced to 2% per annum with effect from 1 January 2019. This rate will apply for the entirety of 2019.
Limitation periods in Cyprus were suspended for many years. However, in 2012 the Limitation of Actionable Rights Law was enacted to reintroduce time limits for the filing of civil claims. In a recent case, the District Court of Limassol held that the law on limitation periods, together with Article 30.2 of the Constitution, imposes specific time limits to ensure the rule of finality and distinguish between bona fide and mala fide civil and criminal procedures.
The Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss an appellant's claim in first-instance proceedings. The claimant had been the only witness in her case, but – after failing to attend the hearing on the appointed date – had requested an adjournment of the case through her lawyers on the grounds that she was unable to attend due to absence abroad for health reasons. The defendant's lawyer had not initially objected to the proposal to adjourn.