Two years have passed since the introduction of the new Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs) on 1st of September 2023. All proceedings initiated after that date now fall under the scope of the new CPRs, while ongoing cases prior to that date remain subject to the old CPRs. By mirroring the English CPRs content and spirit, the Cyprus new CPRs introduce an ambitious procedural framework, and it remains to be seen what the actual impact of the recent reforms in the Cyprus legal order will be. With this context, this article highlights key changes and judicial interpretations since the implementation of the new CPRs.

Primary Purpose

At the heart of the new CPRs lies their so-called primary purpose. According to the CPRs, their primary purpose is to enable the court to manage cases fairly and proportionate in costs.[1] Essentially, this means ensuring that the parties are placed on an equal footing and handling the case in ways that is proportionate and practical in terms of costs, timeframe, and complexity of each case.

Through active case management, the court promotes the primary purpose, which includes, inter alia, encouraging the parties to cooperate, setting timetables, making use of technology, and giving orders and directions to ensure that the case is dealt with promptly and efficiently.[2] As stated in Kandounas v. Iliadis,[3] an attempt is made to bring a shift in legal culture and philosophy that will allow the Court to manage cases with flexibility and practicality, to move away from dysfunctional and unnecessary procedures which contributed to delays and caused expenses to escalate uncontrollably. This avoids frivolous and vexatious actions and achieves a more structured civil procedure.  

As per the Supreme Court’s decision in Kouzalis v. Gordian Holdings Limited:[4]

“More important, however, in relation to the purpose of the Regulations, is the provision in R.3. According to this, the Court, in the exercise of its powers in relation to any proceedings before it, takes into account that 'The primary purpose of the Regulations is to ensure the right of access to the Court and that the Court will operate fairly and efficiently.' It also takes into account that, in every case, 'it must interpret and apply the Regulations with the aim of ensuring access to it in a fair and effective manner … the spirit of Part 1 (Primary Purpose) of the new Civil Procedure Rules, guides the Court away from formalistic approaches … bypassing deliberate procedural complexities and delaying tactics."

Old CPR cases

Yet, this shift in philosophy is not only present with cases under the new CPRs. In Lucy Rebecca Williams,[5] a case governed by the old CPRs, an American woman was hit by a jet ski while on vacation at Nissi Beach. Her expert witness, a doctor, found it difficult to travel from the United States, so it was requested that he provide testimony via video conference. The court, accepting the application, expressed that the primary purpose of the regulations, old or new, must aim at an effective and modern administration of justice. Even in cases governed by the old rules, courts may have regard to the purpose of the new CPRs such as modernisation of justice, as stipulated in rule 60. Therefore, parties should not be concerned that their case will be handled in an outdated manner merely because it falls under the old procedural framework.

Pre-action Protocols

The new CPRs also introduced the Pre-Action Protocols, templates for letters to be exchanged between parties prior to the commencement of litigation.[6] Their primary aim is to encourage early cooperation, facilitate exchange of information, and promote settlement where possible. Where settlement cannot be reached, compliance with these protocols ensures a smoother transition into formal proceedings, although in practice it is seen mostly as a procedural step for trial, rather than a settlement effort.

The courts highlighted that failure to comply with the pre-action protocols may lead to the issuance of orders as to costs against the non-complying party or order a stay of proceedings for the proper observance of pre-action protocols.[7] Nonetheless, in Georgios Roditis v. Grand Masonic Lodge of Cyprus Ltd et al, the defendants sought to dismiss the claim over alleged non-compliance with the pre-action protocol, but the court held that such failure does not, in principle, justify striking out a claim.

The timetable

Active case management includes setting timetables.[8] The key stage is the case management hearing, where the Court issues a timetable outlining steps up to trial. The dates for the presentation of evidence, witness list, expert witnesses, exchange of documents, inspection and disclosure, and submissions are predetermined in the timetable. In LAKON A.T.E. v. Municipality of Paphos,[9] where one party sought to submit supplementary written evidence on the timetable, the court allowed the inclusion of filing supplementary written evidence within the timetable, even if in the end it is not used. This ensures the court is not caught off guard by unexpected filings, thereby changing the timetable itself. The ruling reaffirmed that courts may reject pleadings or evidence not submitted in line with the set timetable.

However, this does not mean that leniency will not be shown. In Neofytos Polyviou v. Georgia Kyprianou,[10] the claimant failed to file the statement of claim within the timeframe and sought an extension. The court granted the extension acknowledging the claimant’s difficulty in arranging a meeting with his lawyers. While noting that the claimant could have acted with more diligence the court concluded that this should not lead to the dismissal of the application and the deprivation of the claimant’s right to pursue his claim.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it could be argued that there is a clear shift in approach that is evident under the new CPRs. A more organized and just system is now in place. Given the significant change brought by this new legal framework courts are showing leniency while all parties and lawyers become familiar with the new CPRs. Nevertheless, it is still the beginning and Cypriot courts must adopt a bold stance in interpreting the new CPRs, and, at the same time, a culture of compliance with the vision of the new CPRs is also expected from all people involved.

[1] Civil Procedure Rules of 2023, Rule 1.2.

[2] Civil Procedure Rules of 2023, Rule 1.5.

[3] Konstantis Kantounas v. Christos Iliadis et al., Civil Appeal No. 54/2024, 18/10/2024.

[4] Markos Kouzalis (deceased, through the administrator of his estate, Giovanni Kouzalis) v. Gordian Holdings Limited, application no. 5/2023.

[5] Lucy Rebecca Williams v. Nissi Boat Water Sports limited, Action No. 534/2016, dated 9/4/2024.

[6] Civil Procedure Rules of 2023, Rule 3.9.

[7] Georgios Roditis v. Grand Masonic Lodge of Cyprus Ltd et al., Claim No. 3416/2023, dated 13/2/2025, and see under English case law, Olatawura v. Abilove [2002] 4 All ER 903, CA; Cundall-Johnson & Partners v. Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust [2007] EWHC 2178.

[8] Civil Procedure Rules of 2023, Rule 23.

[9] LAKON A.T.E. v. Municipality of Paphos, Action No. 1186/23, 2/11/2023.

[10] Neofytos Polyviou v. Georgia Kyprianou otherwise Georgia Klimi et al., Claim No: 143/2024, 11/12/2024.