On 15 September 2025, the District Court of Limassol delivered an important ruling on contempt procedure, holding that personal service is not invariably required and that, depending on the circumstances, the Court may order substituted service on a party’s lawyers.

Background

Facing an application for contempt, the defendants argued that such an application must be served personally and sought to set aside service made on their legal representatives.

Decision

The Court held it retains discretion to permit alternative (substituted) service of a contempt application on a party’s lawyers. It further clarified that, depending on the circumstances of each case, an unsuccessful prior attempt at personal service is not always a precondition to ordering substituted service.

Why this matters (Cyprus context)

The ruling reinforces judicial discretion and prevents contempt proceedings from being frustrated by procedural technicalities. As Pikis J. has observed, “Disobedience to a court order strikes at the foundation of the legal order; its continuation tends to overturn it.” (Loizou v. Police (1996) 2 A.A.D. 227). Where there is continuing disobedience, the need to address it immediately and appropriately to safeguard the administration of justice becomes even more urgent and imperative.

Practical takeaways for litigants in Cyprus

• Do not assume personal service is a strict prerequisite in contempt matters.
• Seek directions for alternative service early where justified.
• Keep a clear record of efforts and context; lack of a failed personal-service attempt will not invariably bar substituted service.

The successful Claimant was represented by Economou Legal.