Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Third-Tier Appeals Under Article 9(3)(c)

By Dr Pavlos Neofytou Kourtellos

The Supreme Court of Cyprus has reaffirmed the strict criteria governing applications for leave to bring a matter before the Court as a third and final level of review under Article 9(3)(c) of the Administration of Justice Law.

In Ibtisam Christoforou v. Clenchby Properties Ltd & Others (Application No. 21/2025, 28 May 2026), the applicant sought leave to raise two alleged legal questions arising from a Court of Appeal judgment concerning documents obtained through an Anton Piller order. The applicant argued that the exclusion of certain documents on constitutional privacy grounds affected her right to a fair trial and that the Court of Appeal’s approach to the doctrine of res judicata raised issues of broader legal significance.

The Supreme Court rejected the application, emphasizing that the jurisdiction conferred by Article 9(3)(c) is limited to genuine legal questions arising from a Court of Appeal decision and relating to matters such as:

1. The need to depart from established case law;
2. The correct interpretation of primary or secondary legislation;
3. Issues of major public importance or general public significance; or
4. The coherence of the law where conflicting appellate decisions exist.

The Court held that the issues advanced by the applicant did not constitute qualifying legal questions. Instead, they amounted to an attempt to revisit factual findings and legal conclusions already considered by both the trial court and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court stressed that the procedure under Article 9(3)(c) is not intended to operate as an “appeal from the appeal” or a mechanism for re-arguing matters previously determined.

The judgment provides important guidance on the scope of the Supreme Court’s third-tier jurisdiction and confirms that leave will only be granted where a clearly identifiable legal issue of wider significance is genuinely engaged.

For litigants and practitioners, the decision serves as a reminder that disagreement with the outcome of an appellate judgment, without more, is insufficient to satisfy the statutory threshold for leave under Article 9(3)(c).

Key takeaway: Applications for leave to invoke the Supreme Court’s exceptional third-instance jurisdiction must identify a true legal issue of broader importance, rather than seek a reassessment of facts or conclusions already adjudicated by the courts below.

Disclaimer

P. N. Kourtellos & Associates LLC acted on behalf of the Respondents in these proceedings. The matter was principally conducted by Mr Marcos Demosthenous, Advocate. This article is intended solely as a general legal analysis of the issues discussed and does not constitute legal advice or commentary on the merits of the case, which remains pending before the court.