|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1985) 1 CLR 49
1985 February 7
[SAVVIDES, STYLIANIDES AND PIKIS, JJ.]
STRATIS STYLIANIDES,
Appellant.
v.
PHAEDRA PASCHALIDOU,
Respondent.
(Case stated No.205).
Rent Control Law, 1963 (Law 23/83)-Case stated-Section 7 of the Law-Only pure questions of law material for the determination of the case can form the subject-matter of an appeal by way of case stated-None of questions submitted to the trial Court raised a pure question of law- Appeal dismissed.
Case stated-Section 7 of the Rent. Control Law, 1983 (Law 26/83)-Only pure questions of law can form the subject matter of an appeal by way of case stated-Need that cases stated must be clearly formulated-Mode of stating a case.
Question of Law-Meaning.
The Rent Control Court made an order of ejectment on the application of the respondent pursuant to the provisions of section 11(l)(c) of the Rent Control Law, 1983 (Law 23/83), for deterioration of the premises due to wilful acts of destruction or wanton neglect on part of the tenant, the appellant. An application was then made to the Court for the statement of a case to the Supreme Court under section 7 of the law and rules made thereunder; and though none of the points taken in the application was found to raise a pure question of law meriting its reference by way of a case to the Supreme Court a question was formulated by the trial Court, apparently designed to set forth the substance of the case of the appellant in. an acceptable form.
After dealing with the issue of what is a question of law-vide pp. 53-54 post:
Held, that only pure questions of law material for the determination of the case can form the subject-matter of an appeal by way of case stated under section 7 of Law 33/83; that none of the questions submitted to the trial Court raised a pure question of law; and that, accordingly the appeal must fail.
Observations: (1) Questions of law raised by way of case stated must be clearly formulated and disclose with exactitude the question of law raised.
(2) The statement must indicate by way of preamble, albeit briefly, the issues in dispute and the material findings of act made by the Court, as well as the order made. Subject to this preamble, the points of law must be stated separately, if possible in numerical order, in a manner revealing the 'pure' legal nature" of the questions and their revelance to the outcome of the case.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases referred to:
In re HadjiCosta (1984) 1 C.L.R. 513 at p. 519;
Edwards v. Baristow [1955] 3 All E. R. 48 (H.L.);
Markoullis v. C.D. hay and Sons Ltd. (1977) 1 C.L.R. 134 at p. 142;
Christofides v. Redundant Employees Fund (1978) 1 C.L.R. 208 at p. 214;
Constantinou v. Woolworth (1980) 1 C.L.R. 302 at p. 313;
Cole Bros. Ltd. v. Phillips [1982] 2 All E. R. 247.
Case stated.
Case stated by the Chairman of the Rent Control Court of Nicosia relative to his decision of the 29th June, 1984 in proceedings under section .11(1) (f) of the Rent Control Law, 1983 (Law No. 23 of 1983) instituted by Phaedra Paschalidou against Stratis Stylianides whereby an ejectment order was made against the appellant.
D. Papachrysostomou with E. Lemonaris, for the appellant.
G. Pelaghias, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
SAVVIDES J.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Pikis, J.
PIKIS J.: The Rent Control Court made an order of ejectment on the application of the respondent pursuant to the provision of section 11(1)c) of the Rent Control Law 1983, for deterioration of the premises due to wilful acts of destruction or wanton neglect on the part of the tenant, the appellant. An application was then made to the Court for the statement of a case to the Supreme Court under section 7 of the law and rules made there under. Apparently none of the points taken in the application was found to raise a pure question of law meriting its reference by away of statement of a case to the Supreme Court. Instead a question was formulated by the Court apparently designed to set forth the substance of the case of the appellant in an acceptable form.
Responsibility for a statement of a case under section 7 of the law lies with the Court. The Court is not bound to state a case in the form presented, if of opinion it does not disclose or define a statable case. Only pure questions of law material for the determination of the case can form the subject matter of an appeal by way of case stated under section 7.
The case stated in this appeal did not raise a pure question of law as already indicated. It reads (translated in English:
"Do there exist the requirements of section 11(1)(c) of Law :23/83 that is, deterioration because of destructive acts, or wilful serious negligence of the tenant in case where the owner and the tenant agreed to the conversion of the premises from a club to a beer house with a right on the part of the tenant to unite in one room the sitting room and parlour by removing a folding door and part of the wall to the right and left of the door, while the tenant demolished beyond the above all the internal walls of, the premises in order to create one room in the entire premises. What is the importance of the concepts of wilful serious 'neglect' and 'adikos' (wrongful or unjust) causation of material' damage under section 11(1)(c)"
Evidently the, question is not premised on the findings of the Court, indirectly disputed by the question raised, and mingles questions of law and fact. The statutory power of the Court on appeal under section 7 - of Law 23/83 -is confined to pure questions of law that must, as Regulation 12(b) requires be precisely defined. Assuming jurisdiction over matters other than pure questions of law would defeat the plain intention of the legislator and amount to a usurpation of, our appellate jurisdiction. Not only the question stated is not confined to pure legal issues, but smacks of a hypothetical question too, especially its first part, that is wholly, impermissible to notice.; Following our ruling on the implications of ,the questions stated, we invited argument, on the nature and effect of the questions submitted to the trial Court for statement to the Supreme. Court with a, view to deciding whether anyone of them raised a pure legal matter and then decide the course to be followed. If that were found to be the case, conceivably (we, must not be taken as deciding the point) there is jurisdiction to remit the case back with a view to enabling the, Court to state such question.
None of the questions submitted to the trial Court raised a pure question of law. Viewing the questions in their entirety, they aim to challenge in effect the findings of the Court. Certainly they, raise issues that were resolved by the tribunal of fact, the trial Court. Thus the first two questions put at issue the findings of the Court that the internal walls of the premises were demolished without authority and that they were of a destructive nature. Also the third question raises anything but a pure question of law. It seeks an answer to whether acts of demolition can be remedied by subsequent reconstruction. The Court found that big part of the premises was demolished without authority while for acts of reconstruction allegedly within the contemplation of the tenant there was no permit. The fourth question is wholly irrelevant to the findings of the Court, it seeks to elicit whether the owner is bound by the act of his agent authorizing acts of, demolition contrary to his instructions. The Court had found that the destructive acts were committed without the authority of either the principal or the agent. The fifth question is likewise premised outside the ambit of the findings of the Court and puts them into question in: an indirect manner. Consequently, we shall not concern ourselves further with our powers, if any, to remit the case back for reconsideration of the questionnaire submitted to the trial Court. On the other hand, our experience in the Court of Appeal persuades us of the need to furnish some guidance to the Rent Control Court and other Courts concerned to state a case to the Supreme Court on a point of law.
What is a question of Law? In Re HadjiCostas (1984) 1 C.L.R. 513, 519, an effort was made to explore what is a question of law and notice the difficulties inherent in supplying an all embracing definition. Whatever its content, it must not call the findings of the Court into question unless, of course, they arise from a misdirection in law; while its relevance to the outcome of the case must be manifest. The Court added: It appears to me that whenever an issue revolves round the application of the law to given facts, it raises a pure question of law. So long as the facts to which the Court is required to apply the law are not called in question, the point is a legal one. It merely raises questions bearing on the interpretation and the scope of the law. Exploration of the ambit of the law is always a question of law". The decision in Edwards v. Bairstow [1955] 3 All E.R. 48 (H.L.) is instructive on the features distinguishing a question of law from one of fact Care must be taken to identify the question and ponder its implications.
On at least three occasions the Supreme Court took pains to indicate that questions of law raised by way of case stated must be clearly formulated and disclose with exactitude the question of law raised - Nicolaos Markoullis v. C. D. Hay and Sons Ltd. (1977) 1 C.L.R. 134, 142; Christofides v. The Redundant Employees Fund (1978) 1 C.L.R. 208, 214: Constantinou v. Woolworth (1980) 1 C.L.R. 302, 313. That these observations were made in relation to an appeal by way of case stated on a point of law under sections 3 and 16 of the Termination of Employment Law, 1967, does not reduce their force, or detract from their relevance. For under the aforesaid law, as under section 7 of Law 23/83, a case can be stated only on a question of law. The formulation must be such as emphasized in Constantinou and Chrisofides (supra) as to disclose unambiguously the point raised and reveal its legal character.
In Cole Bros. Ltd v. Phillips [1982] 2 All E.R. 247, the House of Lords exhorted Courts or Tribunals concerned to state a case on a question ,of law, to state the question succinctly, unobscured, by shifting mixed statements of law and fact. The legal question raised must be imme4iately identifiable. The case is also relevant in an- other respect, namely, the .light it throws on what amounts to a question of law. On every issue, open to the tribunal of fact to decide a matter either way, the decision raises a matter of fact and not an issue of law.
We consider it advisable to give some guidance of the form that a case stated must "take as a matter of proper practice in the interest of certainty, coherence and uniformity. The statement must indicate by way of preamble, albeit briefly, the issues in dispute and the material findings of fact made by the Court, as well as the order made. Subject to this preamble, the points of law must be stated separately, if possible in numerical order, in a manner revealing the pure legal nature of the questions and its relevance to the outcome of the case.
In the light of the above, the, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
No order as to costs.