elko wrote: 2. Point of Fact. Justice Jack found that Orams were not given enough time to put in their defences and the decision in ROC court was taken in their absence. Hence even if it was not for Protocol 10, he would still refuse the application of Apostolides.
As far as I remember this refers to the first appearance at the court in Nicosia. The same arguments "that the first trial did not give the defendants enough time, thus the default initial decision was invalid" were even accepted by the court in Nicosia and the first judgement was put aside. So the trial was REPEATED some time later. It seems Justice Jack totally ignored the fact that the default judgement was put aside and the trial was REPEATED. And that the time between the two trials was more than enough for everybody to prepare his defense.
While we were discussing the Orams case in other topics I did mention the fact that it was pretty obvious that Apostolides had someone very powerful behind him, most propably one of the known GC multimillioneurs.Things don’t move so fast in Cypriot courts, absolutely impossible. Just to have a simple case of a bounced cheque tried at a Cypriot court, an ordinary citizen needs a minimum of 2 years!! How could this guy ever file such a case and have a judgement ruled out within 15 days???
Regardless, the Orams have filed an appeal at the Nicosia supreme court. The date for this appeal is somewhere in December this year. On completion of this appeal the findings of justice Jack become irrelevant, as nobody can still claim there was not enough time to get prepared anymore.
So the only issue to be left is whether the non application of the Aquis at the occupied is a valid reason for British courts to refuse action on admitted crimes done in the occupied by a British citizen against another EU citizen.
Justice Jack in fact did mention in his decision that clarification of what protocol 10 means is the job of a higher court than his.In other words he just threw the ball to a higher British Court or even to the EU court itself.
NB. RoC already applied to the EU for clarification regarding the meaning of protocol 10. The British court of appeals may well have no options left when the appeal will be heard.