An owner dropped a planned luxury house once the design and planning permit were done. The Supreme Court upheld the architect's 6 per cent fee, a balance of 403,047 euro.
In July 2002 a couple in Nicosia engaged an architect to design a luxury house at Agioi Trimithias, of 4,496 square metres. The written appointment fixed his fee at 7 per cent of the value of the project, plus VAT: 6 per cent for the architectural design and 1 per cent for supervision. He prepared the drawings, the tender documents and the structural study, obtained planning permission, and saw the application for a building permit approved. The permit itself was never issued, because the fees for it were not paid. After the husband died in January 2004, the project was abandoned. The architect had been paid 34,300 Cyprus pounds and sued for the rest of his 6 per cent. On 6 October 2026 the Supreme Court dismissed the owner's appeal and upheld judgment for 403,047 euro, plus VAT, interest and costs.
The case settles a question owners ask often: if I stop the project, what do I owe the architect? Where the contract prices the design separately and the design is finished, the answer is the full fee for the design, calculated on the value of the building that was designed.
Design and supervision were two separate obligations
The owner argued that the contract was one whole, and that because both percentages were measured against the cost of the project, nothing could be calculated until the house was built. The Court disagreed. A contract is divisible when it is split into distinct parts, each of which can be performed on its own and earns its own payment, and whether a contract is divisible depends first on its terms. Here the split was plain: 6 per cent for design, 1 per cent for supervision. That both were measured against the value of the project did not merge them into one. The owner, the Court said, had confused the moment the right to the fee arose with the way its amount was calculated. Completing the house was not a condition of the fee for a design that was already complete.
The owner's fallback argument also failed. The appointment set out stages of payment: 10,000 pounds on signing, 10,000 on delivery of the drawings, 10,000 on planning permission and 20,000 on the building permit, with the balance in instalments set by the architect. Those terms, the Court held, governed when the fee was to be paid, not how much it was.
The payment stages said when to pay. The 6 per cent said how much.
The figure on the permit application did not cap the fee
The application for the building permit, and an ETEK form, stated an estimated cost of 500,000 pounds. The architect said the real cost was about 4.5 million, and explained that the lower figure had been written at the owner's wish. A quantity surveyor called by the architect put the cost at 4,549,857 pounds. The owner offered no expert evidence on value, only her own estimate of 500,000 to 1,000,000 pounds, which the trial court found unrealistic for a house of that size and finish. The court fixed the value at 4.5 million pounds, so the design fee was 270,000 pounds, and after deducting the 34,300 already paid the balance was 235,700 pounds, the 403,047 euro of the judgment.
The owner argued that the architect was estopped by the lower figure he had put on official documents. The Court held that the figure was indicative and had no legal effect on the value of the work. On the evidence, the permit fees were calculated by floor area, not by declared cost.
A wrong figure on a form did not make the contract illegal
On appeal the owner also argued that the contract was illegal, because the lower figure was a false statement under section 20(2)(a) of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96. That defence had not been pleaded, and illegality must be pleaded expressly, with the facts that make the purpose unlawful. A court will raise illegality of its own motion only where it is obvious and needs no further inquiry, and this was not such a case. In any event, the contract was for architectural services at a percentage fee, which is lawful. An irregularity committed while performing a lawful contract does not make the contract illegal under section 23 of the Contract Law, Cap. 149. If the owner thought the entry was an offence, the Court said, that was a matter for the competent authorities, not a reason to refuse the architect his fee. The appeal was dismissed with 3,500 euro costs, plus VAT if any.
What this means in practice
This affects anyone who commissions a building in Cyprus: homeowners planning a house, developers, and companies building offices or hotels. Most architect appointments use a percentage of the value of the project, split by stage, and many owners sign them believing they can walk away and pay only for the hours spent. Unless the contract says so, that is not the position. Once a separately priced stage is complete, its full fee is earned, measured against the value of the building as designed.
Before you sign, read the fee clause and ask three questions. On what value is the percentage calculated, and who fixes it? What do you owe if you cancel at each stage? Is there a clause that lets you end the appointment on paying for work done to date? If there is not, negotiate one. Do not sign any document in blank: the owner here said she had, and the trial court did not believe her.
The trap is the figure written on the permit application. It is easy to assume that a low declared cost will also keep the professional fees low. It will not, and putting a figure you know to be wrong on an official form can expose the person who signs it. If a fee dispute does reach court, value is a matter for experts. The owner here lost, among other reasons, because she called no quantity surveyor of her own.
The claim was filed in 2007 and finally decided in 2026, so for architects the judgment confirms a fee that a clear contract protects, and for owners it is a reason to agree termination terms at the start. Our construction practice drafts and reviews appointments of architects and engineers, and acts in fee disputes when they arise.
Sources
- Dimitra Apostolou v. Georgios Metzitis, Civil Appeal 350/2016, Supreme Court of Cyprus, 6 October 2026
- The Contract Law, Cap. 149, CyLaw
- The Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96, CyLaw
This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Need advice on your own matter?
Briefly describe your situation, the people involved and any deadline.
We reply within one business day. We will ask for documents once we confirm we can act.
Receive legal updates by email
When Cyprus law changes, hear it from us
One short email when something changes that matters: new legislation, a decision worth knowing, a deadline. Written by the partners, no marketing, unsubscribe with one click.
You are on the list. The next update on Cyprus law will reach your inbox.
That did not go through. Please write to office@kleanthousplatis.com and we will add you.
Your address is used for these updates and nothing else. Privacy notice.