Injunctive relief secures future enforcement of judgment.
When filing a claim, the plaintiff may apply for an injunction against the defendant’s expropriation or encumbrance of his real property in equity. The goal is to be able to satisfy a court decision that can be made in favor of the plaintiff. This tool is used for a wide range of cases.
In order for the applicant to succeed, he must submit to the court facts and documents, as well as a property valuation report. In addition, there is a legal principle that the applicant must disclose all the facts, otherwise he may be found guilty of misleading the court, and any order will be annulled. The applicant should also apply as soon as possible and not leave the issue unresolved for a long time.
Otherwise, he will be deemed to have waived that right, unless other circumstances justify the issuance of the order. You can apply unilaterally or by subpoena. The court has discretionary power to order that the application be served on the interested opponent so that it can also be heard. Under such circumstances, both parties will be heard at a very early stage and the court will decide whether it is fair to issue an order.
The court does not draw conclusions on the merits of the case, but proceeds to consider the issue on the basis of Article 32 of the Law on Courts and Article 5 of the Civil Procedure Law, Chapter 6. It is sufficient to consider the cause of the claim.In order for the court to decide in favor of an injunction against the sale or alienation of real estate, there are three requirements:
The applicant must prove
- that there is a serious issue to be considered, that is, whether he has a moot case;
that it is probable that the plaintiff is entitled to a remedy, that is, to demonstrate that he can succeed;
- that, unless an interim injunction is granted, it will be difficult or impossible to administer justice at a later stage.
- Having examined these conditions, the court proceeds to decide whether it is fair or convenient to grant an injunction.
In accordance with Article 5(2) of Chapter 6, no such order is issued. Except where it seems that the sale or transfer of property to a third party may prevent the plaintiff from enforcing a judgment that will be in his favor. As mentioned in the case law, it is not necessary to testify about the real intent of the defendant to expropriate or encumber. What matters is the potential impact this will have on the satisfaction of the judgment that may be given. There are precedents when the third condition is cumulatively met, and on the basis of witness testimony, the court concludes that the ratio of probabilities is in favor of the plaintiff. In such a case, the court will consider the appropriateness of an injunction in the circumstances.
On June 4, the Limassol District Court issued a ruling on a mortgaged property awaiting auction by a creditor.The court found that the plaintiff violated his obligations because he did not report that the property was pledged. According to the court, this is an essential fact that delimits the legal status and, consequently, its real possibilities. Plaintiff actively concealed that the property he was trying to withhold was pledged in favor of a third party and presented a false picture. This fact, which also misleads the court, led to the annulment of the injunctions issued.