Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

If somebody rents out property (landlord) he is "enjoying" that property because he is making money out of it.

If somebody is living in that property (tenant), he is also "enjoying" that property!

AWE ... get out fast!

Interesting so both landlord and tenant are liable in the RoC if they are using a property without the owners permission. Except the RoC govt in the form of the Guardian of TC properties and the refugees living in them!

PS as I have said before my family property near Bellapais was bought by my father in 1968 - so no need to get out at all.

Were you able to live there between 63 and 74?

[AWE]

If somebody rents out property (landlord) he is "enjoying" that property because he is making money out of it.

If somebody is living in that property (tenant), he is also "enjoying" that property!

AWE ... get out fast!

Interesting so both landlord and tenant are liable in the RoC if they are using a property without the owners permission. Except the RoC govt in the form of the Guardian of TC properties and the refugees living in them!

PS as I have said before my family property near Bellapais was bought by my father in 1968 - so no need to get out at all.

Were you able to live there between 63 and 74?

Yes, was evacuated in '74 on HMS Hermes. Youngest sister born in Cyprus, both parents now buried there.

[Oracle]

David Haye DOES NOT own any property in north Cyprus...
He rents a villa,from a TC.

Am happy to take Iceman's word on this affair which gets across to me that the man is renting a villa from a tissy on tissy owned land. So don't have a problem with it, as long as the land is pre-74 tissy deed.

As to the boxer promoting Tnucland with a dodgy flag on his underwear, someone bigger and braver than me really ought to have a word.

Iceman is being protective for some reason. First he denied Hayes owned property there and when shown the article he then had to concede. Then he insists Hayes bought TC ("Turkish" ) deeds ... Again, he sounds like he's talking without knowing. Maybe Iceman is just protecting his Satellite installation for this "friend".

Anyway, the most recent times article also clearly said Hayes owns property there. The rest will come out in the wash.

How are things on the fact that even if they are selling "TC" deeds, that they have been done illegally without passing through the Official Land Registry of the RoC?

I think he now regrets sporting those flag boxer shorts ... people really should wash the crap off their pants before going out.

[Nikitas]

"So according to RoC law who do you sue for exploiting the property, the tenant or landlord?

And how do you go about do so?"

On this point RoC law is a copy of English Land Law. The civil wrong involved is that of conversion. When others take your property and use it without your permission they commit the tort of conversion, which is what Apostolides is claiming and what obviously the Orams did. The defense of no knowledge is irrelevant.

The damages are claimed in money against those commiting the wrongful act, and that includes tenants, sham "landlords" and estate agents. If more than one person are involved then you can add the civil wrong of cosnpiracy against the whole bunch.

We still do not know if Apostolides will go ahead and execute the jugkement agains the Orams. He might simply want the ethical satisfaction of a judgement against them so as to reinforce his land title.

[Tim Drayton]

"So according to RoC law who do you sue for exploiting the property, the tenant or landlord?

And how do you go about do so?"

On this point RoC law is a copy of English Land Law. The civil wrong involved is that of conversion. When others take your property and use it without your permission they commit the tort of conversion, which is what Apostolides is claiming and what obviously the Orams did. The defense of no knowledge is irrelevant.

The damages are claimed in money against those commiting the wrongful act, and that includes tenants, sham "landlords" and estate agents. If more than one person are involved then you can add the civil wrong of cosnpiracy against the whole bunch.

We still do not know if Apostolides will go ahead and execute the jugkement agains the Orams. He might simply want the ethical satisfaction of a judgement against them so as to reinforce his land title.

Not relevant to the topic in hand, but always been curious. Does English common law play any part in Cyprus law? The law in Cyprus appears to be a far more codified affair than in England, but I always get the sense that elements of Anglo-Saxon common law are present. Grateful for any clarification.

[YFred]

"So according to RoC law who do you sue for exploiting the property, the tenant or landlord?

And how do you go about do so?"

On this point RoC law is a copy of English Land Law. The civil wrong involved is that of conversion. When others take your property and use it without your permission they commit the tort of conversion, which is what Apostolides is claiming and what obviously the Orams did. The defense of no knowledge is irrelevant.

The damages are claimed in money against those commiting the wrongful act, and that includes tenants, sham "landlords" and estate agents. If more than one person are involved then you can add the civil wrong of cosnpiracy against the whole bunch.

We still do not know if Apostolides will go ahead and execute the jugkement agains the Orams. He might simply want the ethical satisfaction of a judgement against them so as to reinforce his land title.

If the law does not differentiate between common theft and land lost in war, that it becomes an ass.

[AWE]

"So according to RoC law who do you sue for exploiting the property, the tenant or landlord?

And how do you go about do so?"

On this point RoC law is a copy of English Land Law. The civil wrong involved is that of conversion. When others take your property and use it without your permission they commit the tort of conversion, which is what Apostolides is claiming and what obviously the Orams did. The defense of no knowledge is irrelevant.

The damages are claimed in money against those commiting the wrongful act, and that includes tenants, sham "landlords" and estate agents. If more than one person are involved then you can add the civil wrong of cosnpiracy against the whole bunch.

We still do not know if Apostolides will go ahead and execute the jugkement agains the Orams. He might simply want the ethical satisfaction of a judgement against them so as to reinforce his land title.

Very interesting.

So a TC awarded "exchange land" who sells it to a property developer, who builds a condo, then sell the flats to a number of nationals (EU and non), who together have an owners committee, who hire a management company to look after the common areas/individual flats could all be liable - individuals and corporate bodies along every step mentioned - my questions are now who would the GC owner go after and would any compensation awarded have to be paid by all or awarded and apportioned across all with only those sued paying their share?

[Tim Drayton]

"So according to RoC law who do you sue for exploiting the property, the tenant or landlord?

And how do you go about do so?"

On this point RoC law is a copy of English Land Law. The civil wrong involved is that of conversion. When others take your property and use it without your permission they commit the tort of conversion, which is what Apostolides is claiming and what obviously the Orams did. The defense of no knowledge is irrelevant.

The damages are claimed in money against those commiting the wrongful act, and that includes tenants, sham "landlords" and estate agents. If more than one person are involved then you can add the civil wrong of cosnpiracy against the whole bunch.

We still do not know if Apostolides will go ahead and execute the jugkement agains the Orams. He might simply want the ethical satisfaction of a judgement against them so as to reinforce his land title.

Very interesting.

So a TC awarded "exchange land" who sells it to a property developer, who builds a condo, then sell the flats to a number of nationals (EU and non), who together have an owners committee, who hire a management company to look after the common areas/individual flats could all be liable - individuals and corporate bodies along every step mentioned - my questions are now who would the GC owner go after and would any compensation awarded have to be paid by all or awarded and apportioned across all with only those sued paying their share?

It is essentially a case of musical chairs, isn't it? Whoever ends up holding the baby loses. Those TCs who managed to pass on their exchange property and get paid for it could end up double winners.

[Malapapa]

"So according to RoC law who do you sue for exploiting the property, the tenant or landlord?

And how do you go about do so?"

On this point RoC law is a copy of English Land Law. The civil wrong involved is that of conversion. When others take your property and use it without your permission they commit the tort of conversion, which is what Apostolides is claiming and what obviously the Orams did. The defense of no knowledge is irrelevant.

The damages are claimed in money against those commiting the wrongful act, and that includes tenants, sham "landlords" and estate agents. If more than one person are involved then you can add the civil wrong of cosnpiracy against the whole bunch.

We still do not know if Apostolides will go ahead and execute the jugkement agains the Orams. He might simply want the ethical satisfaction of a judgement against them so as to reinforce his land title.

If the law does not differentiate between common theft and land lost in war, that it becomes an ass.

Why?

Why should an innocent victim of common theft have more protection than an innocent victim of war?

[YFred]

"So according to RoC law who do you sue for exploiting the property, the tenant or landlord?

And how do you go about do so?"

On this point RoC law is a copy of English Land Law. The civil wrong involved is that of conversion. When others take your property and use it without your permission they commit the tort of conversion, which is what Apostolides is claiming and what obviously the Orams did. The defense of no knowledge is irrelevant.

The damages are claimed in money against those commiting the wrongful act, and that includes tenants, sham "landlords" and estate agents. If more than one person are involved then you can add the civil wrong of cosnpiracy against the whole bunch.

We still do not know if Apostolides will go ahead and execute the jugkement agains the Orams. He might simply want the ethical satisfaction of a judgement against them so as to reinforce his land title.

If the law does not differentiate between common theft and land lost in war, that it becomes an ass.

Why?

Why should an innocent victim of common theft have more protection than an innocent victim of war?

The victim of the common theft is the victim of the thief, the victim of war is the victim of their own government. You'll find Sampson may have something to do with it. One thing for sure, the two are not the same. And a judge that does not see that is blind.