orams how they are held resposible

nilmoney


Joined: 29/12/2008
Posts: 122

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 20:58

Hi all,



Forgive my ignorance but I do not understand why Mr & Mrs Oram have lost this case.

Indeed surely the person/company who sold them the land are responsible

Can someone enlighten me

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 21:07

The Orams were the soft target.

The seller of the said land is of Turkish geneology and almost untouchable by any Court in the ROC.

The Orams would have almost no chance of recourse against the seller.



The Orams lost this case in the main because the ROC and the Applicant Mr Appostolides have the might of European law on their side being European in every legal respect. The TRNC is of course unrecognised as the administration of the Northern territory. The consequence is that the Orams were left with no legal basis to offer any sort of realistic defence. It is abhorrent that even the UK itself failed under public policy to protect its own citizens from unfair and unjust proceedings that have come from a foreign power.

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 21:12

IMHO , if they never answered the writ , contested it , took it to court , nothing could have been done ??

nilmoney


Joined: 29/12/2008
Posts: 122

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 21:16

I'm Sorry I still dont get it



Are yoy saying because the ROC felt they could not act against the The seller of the said land of Turkish geneology



They went for the soft target and then it would be up to David & Linder to act against the original seller?

nilmoney


Joined: 29/12/2008
Posts: 122

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 21:19

Just an after thought in the current climate is it not better not to have your deeds?

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 21:35

nobody gets it , but your answering your own questions , this is trnc ,who knows ??

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 21:38

No.......it's the person living in the house that counts not the owner. That's why all these Trusts that the lawyers are presently promoting are just a waste of money.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 21:43

Bradus, excuse my naievity, if you have the deeds to a house here but you rent it out, are you saying that you can't be touched?

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 21:47

Bill



I think that is right mate as it is the occupant that is classed as trespassing and denying the claiming owner use of the land/property according to the ROC.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 22:07

Afraid so Bill. Its the occupants they will go for. Stupid but true.

nilmoney


Joined: 29/12/2008
Posts: 122

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 22:12

Well thats cleared that up all clear now!

thanks for that folks

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 22:13

Bill,



You might wish to read this, to clarify the above.



http://www.hbpg-trnc.net/documents/Press/CT230110_warning.html

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 22:26

the point is the claimant argued successfully that

for the biased eu court, this land was always supposedly "his" and is therefore "illegaly" occupied



depending on present or alternative trnc owners, giving to a trust or similar manoevers would not help you



but with the impossiblity of implementing eu judgements within the trnc,

there is rich potential for hiding any uk assets nonetheless



a curious aspect of this case is the claimant wants the property restored and returned

but here we enter murky waters because nobody imagines the he will ever take physical posession



...unless you hold the completely irrational view that continuing efforts to damage trnc tourism

will in some still-to-be-explained manner prompt turkey to make concessions/leave cyprus etc etc etc



exactly the opposite is more likely:

a increasingly turkified north cyprus with a growing mainland turkish identity

just look at any map of the med, and see why this is the far more logical outcome

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 22:29

Nilmoney,



You might want to research what exchange land actually is. This is what the Orams purchased. The ECHR's stated that this land belongs to the Greek Cypriots that fled in 1974. Until recently the GC owner could do nothing to claim back his land in the North as the TRNC was not recognised by anyone but Turkey. The Orams case now means that GC owners can take their case to any court in Europe and seize their "European"

assets as compensation for the loss of their land and use of their property.



They lost because European law was on the side of the GC. Once the ECHR's had established who the legal owner was, it was only ever going to be down hill from then on. As the case was done for political reasons, we will have to wait and see what happens next. The Orams have just lost their right to appeal.

rowan


Joined: 04/09/2008
Posts: 450

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 23:05

what title deed did this land have

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 23:43

some confusion over seizure of assests I fear.



If the Nicosia District Court or indeed any legitimate Court makes an Order that involves payment of monies to the applicant then those monies must be paid in accordence with the order.



If the plaintiff fails to make payment then the plaintiff can apply to the Court for seizure of assests for disposal in order to meets the monetary demand of the Order.



Seizure of assets is in no way automatic or likely to be awarded in property cases brought befor the ROC Courts unless plaintiff fails to comply.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 23:47

MSG5

nilmoney;



Now,there is a CLEVER thought.........



I was wandering how long it would take for someone to come up with that theory.

denizkisi


Joined: 18/09/2008
Posts: 196

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 23:52

How can you "exchange" something when you dont :

KNOW who you are exchanging with and for what? This is totally unrecognised in the ROC.

Whats to stop the TC selling the "exchange" land to you and then nipping over to the south to claim their original land back? a win win situation for the TC - Caveat emptor .................

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 00:05

msg 18

deniskisi;

You are quite right,but this is a situation created by RoC and not TRNC by simply not recognising TRNC,which is what I've been saying on another thread.

However,if you've got your title deeds for your house in TRNC,since you have %100 TRNC governments back up and you also have no assets in another EU country,you are safe as HOUSE .

Tenakoutou



Joined: 27/07/2009
Posts: 4110

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 12:35

Title deeds granted on so-called 'Ech' land aren't worth a 'nob of goatsh1t' - why pay out tax on a worthless document?



And don't be fooled into buying pre '74 Turkish Title, cos you won't get PTP/Kocan - you'd better all believe it!



Don't buy any property in the South 'as an investment', because you'll be shafted by capital gains tax, or find out you've been twatted by any number of other scams when you come to sell it - you'd better all believe it!



The Cypriot 'authorities' on both sides know all this, which should, if they care tuppence about the future, force them to cobble together a settlement. Their collective problem is that they can't see any further than the bonnet of their Mercedes.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 12:51

I reckon the south Cyprus government will soon be putting up signs at all the crossings saying "trespassers will be prosecuted." Apparently, according to the legal asses in the EU, it is now the case that 1 million people a year illegally trespass in the TRNC. Perhaps eventually they'll arrest the pilots of a CTA plane from Ercan for trespass when they land in the UK? Ercan airport is built on GC land. Yes, I know it's a civil and not a criminal case.



And it's all because the Greek Judge who said that only Greeks could use the name feta for cheese, President of the ECJ court, Papadopolous medal holder, convinced the rest of the judges that he was right about the Orams case. Obviously the other judges became experts after reading the summary of the case given by Papadopolous to the President of the court and passed on to them.

Cobbler


Joined: 15/11/2009
Posts: 61

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 13:09

But if the Greek owner didnt sell the land to the Turkish cypriot how come it is not still his, Im confused.

nilmoney


Joined: 29/12/2008
Posts: 122

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 13:34

R eference msg 21





Where does it end would it be the case that if someone flew via larnace airport on checking passport they found trnc stamps this would be an issue?



Ahhh! but the airport is built on Turkish land I hear the outcry!!

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 13:38

nilmoney

"Just an after thought in the current climate is it not better not to have your deeds? "



Having title or not would have not affected the Orams case much, they were in court for trespass.

For reasons mentioned by yorgozlu and tenakoutou. there is not advantage for EU citizens to have title,so save yourself the taxes.Another advantage of not having title deed apart from saving thousands would be that,and I am guessing here,the Orams could not have been asked to demolish the house as technically they wouldnt have owned it.

Not that it would make much difference as the TRNC authorities will refuse anyway,but at least they wouldnt have to apply for demolition.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 13:41

On the above point.



What happens if your Deeds are ready for transfer and you dont accept them, by refusing to pay the taxes?

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 13:48

Girne_29, the Orams trespassed and damaged the property. They had to "make right" by demolishing the villa. Having Deeds is irrelevant outside the TRNC, but very important inside the TRNC. It's about trespass not ownership. The GCs on TC property down south are not trespassing because of a very important point of law - it's because THE LAW IS AN ASS!!!!

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 14:00

I'm getting weary of "ingenious solutions" offered by fellow members



firstly there won't be a cyprus solution, because both sides have contradictory requirements



secondly tactics to defeat attacks on expat property must be developed over time,

and require technical input and testing



thirdly the eu legal system doesn't act in the common interest:

a good example is the 80 000 serbs of craina/croatia expelled by the croat regime,

having lived at peace with their neighbours for 150 years but despised by the eu leadership

...curiously this expelled people are orthodox christians, just like the gc's themselves

perhaps this is all because france and the croats are both catholic? perish the thought!



but then again, croatia is not yet an eu member

(and you thought the eu was a trade club not a sinister beauracracy led by france and germany)



so let north cyprus look to itself,

clear away litter and spivs, get trained up, and conserve its undying beauty and uniqueness

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 14:09

andre

"I'm getting weary of "ingenious solutions" offered by fellow members "



why?



Nobody is offering an ingenious solution ,merely bandying ideas and comments about,which is what a forum is about.

Tenakoutou



Joined: 27/07/2009
Posts: 4110

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 14:21

The GC's, by 1963, had totally violated the terms of their own constitution; and how the 'opponents' of TRNC and Turkey can't see that simply defeats me.



By their own actions, it seems perfectly logical that they invalidated the very constitution they signed up to.



Unfortunately, there is no higher court to take the EU/UN to, because they are the guilty ones in recognising and, in the case of EU, assimilating a state (RoC) which is not only technically still 'at war', but also whose 'constitution' is completely unconstitutional.



Therefore, it would seem that everyone who sets foot anywhere on the whole island is trespassing on either of two 'rogue states'!

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 14:32

Mal

Maybe the Orams are a bad example, ref deeds, as they bought the land and built on it.

What if I bought off plan or ready built.It wouldnt be me that damaged the land, it would have been the developer.

If I refused to pay taxes and therefore take on the title in my name, the developer is still the owner.

Also ,what if the Orams were renting out ,the renter would not be liable to demolish surely,but the owner.



If you are an EU citizen ,leaving out the above points,there appears to be no advantage in having deeds transferred in your name,and at least you would have saved thousands of pounds by not taking title.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 14:54

Girne_29, I think you're missing the point. As far as international law is concerned, you can't pass on a title deed for something you don't own. It is all about how the EU, for example sees that piece of land not the TRNC. Within the TRNC, and in Turkey, title deeds are important as far as the north is concerned.



When you are talking about the EU they don't recognise any ownership issues you are talking about, it's down to trespass and damage. Now, buying off plan is no good as they'll say that you instructed the developer to do the damage. Buying an already built property, especially pre-owned, removes the damage charge but not the trespass. Personally I believe you'd be low down on the target list as the amount of damages asked would be far less. Renting is excellent because you could just move to another property and the trespassing damages would be even less and there would be no call for YOU to demolish.



Not having deeds creates one important problem. The developer can re-s

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 15:38

Mal



I suppose if the developer can resell, then its a no use not taking the deeds unless you were wanting to cut your losses .

On the point about off plan ,I agree you would be liable to demolish because you had instructed the builder.However that shouldnt apply ,if, as in most cases the developer had started building before you had entered into agreement.The builder was going to build them anyway and not because you in particular had asked him to. I know people who have bought off plan where the villa was 80% completed.

Tenakoutou



Joined: 27/07/2009
Posts: 4110

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 16:13

If a developer resells a property that there exists a TRNC recognised sales contract for and that contract states that the said property has been paid for in full, then surely this constitutes fraud, irrespective of the refusal of PTP, or, even if granted, the developer has been 'blackmailing' the buyer by refusing to sign over the title deed unless the buyer pays his (the developer's or builder's) taxes?



Are you saying, Mal, that the very existence of a sales contract, irrespective of title transfer, renders the buyer liable to prosecution on the grounds of trespass by RoC, which after the precedent of the Orams' case, is likely to be 'rubber-stamped' in any other EU state?

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 16:31

The main issue with legalities pertaining to property or indeed any other matter in the TRNC is that the Law system remains only accepted and therefore with any creedence in the TRNC and Turkey.



It is clear now that ROC and European law has the upper hand. Clearly most judgments made in the ROC will not be enforceable in the north because of the physical seperation that protects the north.

Again, I am afraid that Europeans are the soft targets and may well become the sacraficial lambs becuae of the unilateral EU enfocement precedent.



If you are European then you must consder how to defend against attack.

Tenakoutou



Joined: 27/07/2009
Posts: 4110

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 16:50

Msg 34: 'If you are European then you must consder how to defend against attack.'



Looks like there's going to be a mass run on Brinsley's bazooka arsenal!

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 16:52

The sales contract SHOULD be irrelevant as it would not be recognised, however it might be used to show an intention to trespass. This is all academic however because, as far as I understand it, the GC owner has first to find evidence of trespass. An inhabited house gives that evidence more easily so they would probably wait until you move in.

What happens next is just my theory, I was a business law lecturer not a practising lawyer, the GC has to then issue a writ and go through the RoC courts to establish it is their property and you are trespassing on it. During that period your UK assets are not at risk (I believe) and some people at that stage would use trusts etc in the UK (not the TRNC) to protect their assets there. A judgement in the UK would be pretty useless if you have no assets and can't pay the GC's legal fees. Any UK lawyer should know that and would expect the GC to pay their fees up front because they won't be coming from you if you're broke. I doubt they'd bother.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 17:21

Wonder how much setting up a trust would be, plus all the bother, compared to having to pay back rent for trespass.

Would it be worth it considering the slight chance that these court cases will ever materialise in most of our lifetimes.

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 17:50

girne 29,



setting up a trust in cyprus...

surely that actually means passing your ownership to someone else?

sounds a risk-filled proposition to me

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
31/01/2010 19:16

You have to appear in a court in the south first, possibly giving you enough time to sort out UK assets.

Tenakoutou



Joined: 27/07/2009
Posts: 4110

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 10:18

Andre 514/Msg 38: 'girne 29,



setting up a trust in cyprus...



surely that actually means passing your ownership to someone else?



sounds a risk-filled proposition to me





Having experienced, first hand, and been an innocent victim of the the glaring loopholes in the 'law', I wholeheartedly condone and second the contents of your posting!



The advocates will likely be rubbing their hands with glee at the potential prospect of 'trust' business from the Brits! 'Gamoti ratsa sou, ama efaristo para poli, Kyrios Apostolides!' they'll be chorusing.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 13:25

Andre.

Sorry for not being clear. I was meaning the cost of putting assets in UK in trust,not in TRNC.

Wouldnt touch anything involving lawyers in the TRNC if could help it.



What I was suggesting was, given the expense and bother of setting up a trust ,and given the chance that all this will die down anyway,would it be worth it.

All you would be saving is the back rent,and would still be forbidden from using your villa anyway.



Assets in childrens name ,that can have risks. What if son marries and then divorces. Your house would be counted as being an asset of his and have to be split with wife.



The risk of court action will be slim.Some of us are not affected in the Orams decision directly but the strain on the economy will affect everyone.

Its a shame, many of us were genuinely hoping for a settlement even if it cost. Now that has evaporated.Best wait to see if Eroglu's harder position when he wins is the better.I feel embarrassed for Talat, not his fault.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 15:35

re 34 Waz



Why would you say only Europeans are 'at risk'



If you are Turkish or Russian or whatever - if you have EU based tangible assets and a valid enforcement order against you ....

Traveller0392


Joined: 21/03/2008
Posts: 186

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 15:42

Hey Mark,



I thought you'd been banned for 'life'....? Just shows, don't believe everything you read ...

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 16:46

M6 said "If you are Turkish or Russian or whatever - if you have EU based tangible assets and a valid enforcement order against you ...."

Didn't Turkey steal north Cyprus, aren't their army trespassing all over it, haven't they any EU assets?

Tenakoutou



Joined: 27/07/2009
Posts: 4110

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 16:54

Crikey, Mal - don't give the GC's any more ideas - except, perhaps, for a small cash consideration!

baxi7


Joined: 23/09/2008
Posts: 130

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 17:36

perhaps an apartment block with owners from all different countries might end up with court case all over . or is it just the eu which is daft enough ? .

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 20:34

message 46



3 floor apartment block in Nicosia 3 apartments per level .Interesting scenario.



If you were the only EU guy out of 9 would you be 1/9 liable for trespass . Would your degree of trespass be dependant on what floor you were on.Ground floor more of a trespass than the top.What if you had penthouse would that be 2 trespass shares out of 9.



How would you explain to all the Turks and T/C's living above you that you were demolishing your ground floor share,without them rolling about with laughter.



Could you return to the UK and explain to the court that you couldnt comply due to you wanting to stay alive.



Another little point. If the Orams had swapped villas and title with a friend between the time the ROC order was served and the UK court case ,would the whole process not have to start again as the name and address on the ROC court order would not tally with the name and address on the UK court order.

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 22:48

mmmmmm

Europeans are at risk in the main because they are the easy target for ROC ( european) litigation.



Any seizure of assets can be along drawn out legal process and is a route to be utalised if judgment is not carried out.

The Orams are, in my view, very unlikely indeed to have assests seized. They clearly intend to follow the judgment "to the letter"

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 22:53

waz i think they will they have haD SO MUCH BAD ADVICE. its aLL so sad. sorry these caps have a mind of thier own. i hope they can get on with the rest of thier lives without worry of courts etc, my heaRT AND SOUL goes out to them. xxx

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 23:09

Girne msg 46.

You are indeed very correct.

It is very apparent that the UK appeal Court Judges and the European Courts have passed judgments that under the de-facto administration of the TRNC would simply not be able to be implemented or indeed enfoced.

Judges are obliged when making judgments to issue only orders that can realistically be enforced.



I do not think that any of the Judges took enough advice or consultation upon the workings and administration within the TRNC. To simply deny its exhistance does not excuse the issuance of unworkable orders.

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 23:17

Question to Mal who knows more answersthan I do.

We are talking about members of E.U here who are most at risk, by buying, developing 'Exchange Land'.

My question is what about the villages which were totally Greek Cypriot way back (and partially empty in 1974) (Karmi excepted because they are leases). Turks were then brought over to boostg the numbers and live out their lives and 'go forth and multiply' - which they did and are now into 3rd generation. Some of them have kept the property and lands they were given, others have sold land, developed land and sold the buildings, and now there are many other nationalities living in these formerly G.C villages (like Mal's own).

Who will be got at ? The Turks for developing the place? The Government for giving it to 'settlers' (that the GC';s want out to create another set of refugees!), or the people who bought in good faith?

Gets complicated?

And what compensation could be payable on wrecks (which are stillbeing created), and to whom

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 23:32

the gc,s will not touch the tc,s ,not when it comes to property.











musin





long live the kktc

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 23:42

MarieB, it's all about trespass, damage, wealth of the GC and amount of EU assets owned by the Brit. My guess is that top of the list would be property previously occupied by a rich GC, built on and lived in by a Brit with lots of UK assets. You and I, MarieB, are not good targets unless they want my old caravan and overdraft.

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
01/02/2010 23:51

or my kaf as they call it xxxxxx

rwilson


Joined: 14/04/2008
Posts: 87

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 00:10

A lot of brits have "bought" a villa in a development. So they are not guilty of anything but trespass. HOWEVER, if they only can be proved to live there 2 weeks a year - its an insignificant offence?

Corbo



Joined: 13/09/2009
Posts: 627

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 20:04

There must be loop holes here and if the legal game gets dirty they may need looking into. For instance I have no UK assets currently and could buy someone's house who is under threat, short term until it blows over and then sell it back to them. We could start a company up to do this. Would need looking into and planning but I'm sure two can play at this devious game of monopoly law.

andy-f


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 1256

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 20:35

if it gets to that there are going to be some very rich solicitors.



andy

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 20:50

"if they only can be proved to live there 2 weeks a year - its an insignificant offence?"

Minor amount of compensation but to go back would be contempt of court,

Corbo, a house swap would be easier, as long as it's with someone without EU assets. I think you're right; a lot of creative thinking is needed. Plus, I'd like to find out if the Orams UK assets would cover Mr A's £800,000 legal bill. If they won't then he'll find himself having to pay them himself, surely? That's got to be a big dissuader for the next GC even if the legal fees turn out to be a lot less because of the precedent set by the case.

The Immovable Property Commission would be less risky and you'd be guaranteed a result of some sort.

Corbo



Joined: 13/09/2009
Posts: 627

Message Posted:
02/02/2010 21:42

Yes..regarding EU law and the hijackers who flew to the UK as terrorists and who were going to blow up the plane at one point but were stopped. They then claimed asylum and won their case and avoided extradition on human rights issues. Surely then anything is plausible if looked into and put into action. These housing issues must be relatively easy to come back on. There must be loopholes and many ways of nipping this in the bud before it spreads.

apples


Joined: 10/11/2009
Posts: 43

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 17:34

have the Orams been found in contempt of court yet ?



Can't seem to find any latest news

NoveltyBubble


Joined: 11/11/2009
Posts: 46

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 18:35

Msg 60



I too would like to know if the Orams have been found in contempt of court yet as i understood that they had 14 days to comply with the UK court of appeals ruling.



Please can somebody let us know the latest?



NB

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 20:55

apples,

The Orams are hardly likely tio be held in contempt.

They haver made it very clear that they intend to follow the Court Order to the letter.

If, as is the case, the TRNC admin. deny permission to demolish then Mr Appostolides must then task the TRNC for obstruction and frustration. What an interesting case that will be. Litigation against an un-recognised government and state?

The Orams certainly remain quiet and I believe a strategy is in place that, I think ,could take the wind out of the appostolides victory.

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 22:11

Oh dear, it seems some of you guys don'[t read local papers!



No, the Orams are NOT in contempt. Firstly the 14 days was not from the date of the decision, but from the date of a Court order to demolish. When the Orams received that, they emptied out their property at Lapta, put in a Demolition order to the Government, and are therefore deemed to have 'complied with the order'



There is nothing else they can do. Now it is a quesiton of waiting for the government to refuse to demolish. That will come in due course - then I guess it is 'Plan B' or Plan Z!



The Orams however, are not guilty in any way of any contempt. They have complied as far as they are able.



And yes, WAZ, to sue TRNC is to recognise it exists! Enough said!

Aga Buyers A G


Joined: 04/10/2007
Posts: 488

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 23:02

" And yes, WAZ, to sue TRNC is to recognise it exists! Enough said! "



You Don't Sue the TRNC you Sue Turkey the "Motherland"!!!



X

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
16/02/2010 23:44

Now I am getting lost. If the demolition order is refused here, surely the RoC can't go to Turkey because Turkey is not in the EU so they would be wasting their time. TRNC is and is not in the EU - depends who is speaking and who wants what. Turkey is neither onCyhprus, nor in EU, so could someone who knows more about the law tell me where RoC and British courts go next? Is that when they start taking money from the Orams property in U.K, or will the TRNC gov/viz Turkey pay out money, or will they DEMAND that all property matters are dealt with in a proper manner after the talks? I am sure the Orams don't know, and I am blowed if I do. Any ideas?

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 00:30

MarieB,



Firstly, Turkey are not party to the Orams case in any way. It is a civil litigation case.

The Court Order issued by the ROC District Court is to demolish. The Court of Appeal has ruled that the judgment can indeed be enforced in UK.

The Orams have applied to TRNC admin to demolish. Orams cannot be held in contempt whilst they are physically unable to comply.

The ball is securely in Mr Appostalides's court. What steps are open to him to seek enforcemnet?

UK courts will consider the efforts the Orams have taken to comply. Apostalides will be aware of this and will acknowledge that it is the TRNC admin that are obstructing the enforcement.



Appostalides may well now take his case to the IPC. My view is that the Orams will not be penalised by any UK Court. They have followed the Order to their very best ability.

The Court will do nothing without application from Apostalides. I expect the matter to continue and remain front page for some time yet.

Tenakoutou



Joined: 27/07/2009
Posts: 4110

Message Posted:
17/02/2010 16:11

Mr. Apostolides and RoC will continue to discover that they're trying to 'shovel peas with a pitchfork'!