Ms Papasolomou successfully represented the Defendant in a civil action, in the context of which an application was filed seeking the dismissal of the claim due to the Plaintiffs’ failure to issue a summons for directions within the time limits prescribed by Order 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

The Defendant had duly filed a defence and counterclaim, whereas the Plaintiffs failed both to file a reply to the defence and a defence to the counterclaim and to proceed with the issuance of a summons for directions within the prescribed ninety-day period. The Plaintiffs argued that the pleadings could not be considered closed due to the pending counterclaim however, this position was rejected by the Court.

 

The Court, adopting the legal submissions advanced on behalf of the Defendant, held that the time limit for issuing a summons for directions commenced upon the lapse of seven days from the filing of the defence, in accordance with Order 26 rule 11 and Order 30 as amended. The Court further held that the existence of a counterclaim does not suspend or affect the strict procedural deadlines imposed by Order 30 in relation to the prosecution of the main action.

 

The Court concluded that the action was to be deemed abandoned and proceeded to dismiss it awarding costs in favour of the Defendant.

​

🔗 Read the court's decision

________________________________________