Supreme Court Refuses Leave to Challenge Court of Appeal Decision in Long-Running Civil Dispute

By Dr Pavlos Neofytou Kourtellos

On 9 July 2026, the Supreme Court of Cyprus dismissed an application for leave to challenge a Court of Appeal judgment arising from a long-running civil dispute between Peter Lawson and Xie Shaodan.

The proceedings originated from Civil Action No. 1421/2014 before the District Court of Paphos. In 2016, judgment in default of appearance was entered in favour of the claimant for €920,000, together with interest and legal costs.

The defendant subsequently applied to set aside the judgment. This led to several procedural decisions and appeals over a number of years.

A significant development occurred on 29 September 2023, when the District Court struck out the principal claims on the basis that the claimant had no cause of action against the defendant in his personal capacity. That decision was never appealed and therefore became final and binding.

Following further proceedings, the Court of Appeal ultimately allowed the defendant’s appeal and set aside the 2016 default judgment. The Court of Appeal also observed that, because the substantive claims had already been struck out by the unchallenged 2023 decision, nothing remained to be determined in the action.

The claimant then applied to the Supreme Court for leave to pursue a further challenge under section 9(3)(c) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law of 1964, as amended.

Four proposed legal issues were raised, including:

1. the scope of appellate intervention;
2. delay and alleged contemptuous conduct in applications to set aside judgments;
3. alleged inconsistencies in the Court of Appeal’s reasoning; and
4. the legal consequences of overturning an earlier order setting aside a judgment.

The Supreme Court rejected the application.

In its unanimous judgment, the Court held that the Court of Appeal had properly considered the exceptional procedural history of the case and had correctly applied the principles governing applications to set aside regularly obtained judgments.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the applicant was effectively seeking to have the Court act as an appellate court over the Court of Appeal, which is not permitted.

The Court also attached particular importance to the fact that the District Court’s decision of 29 September 2023 had never been challenged. As a result, that decision remained binding, and the principal claims in the action had been finally struck out.

The application for leave was therefore dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay €2,000 in legal costs, plus VAT where applicable.

Key Takeaway

The judgment highlights the importance of challenging adverse interim decisions through the appropriate appellate procedure and within the applicable timeframe. A party who fails to appeal a binding decision may be prevented from attempting to reopen the same issue through later proceedings.

Disclaimer

P. N. Kourtellos & Associates LLC acted on behalf of the Respondent in these proceedings. The matter was principally conducted by Dr Pavlos Neofytou Kourtellos and Ms Maria Hadjiaggeli. This article is intended solely as a general legal analysis of the issues discussed and does not constitute legal advice.