A freeze over two companies named one global figure of 100,825 euro. The appeal court kept the order but split it, because each answers only for what is claimed from it.
A Cyprus company in an aviation venture discovered, once its ultimate owners finally obtained access to its own bank accounts, that three transfers totalling 100,825 euro had left the company and reached two other companies. It sued, and on the same day applied without notice for an order freezing the bank accounts of those two companies up to that figure. The Limassol District Court made the order on 24 September 2018 and finalised it on 10 March 2020.
On 10 September 2026 the Court of Appeal kept the freeze in place but changed its shape. The order had named one global sum of 100,825 euro against both companies together. That, the court held, was wrong. The order now binds 80,000 euro in the accounts of the first company and 20,825 euro in the accounts of the second.
Who this matters to
Anyone who applies for or receives a freezing order in Cyprus, and in particular any business that deals through more than one corporate vehicle. The point that decided the appeal is a drafting point, and it cuts both ways:
- Claimants who freeze the assets of two or more companies in a group on a single global figure.
- Companies served with an order that names a lump sum without saying how much of it is claimed from each of them.
- Directors and shareholders whose operating accounts are caught by an order obtained against a related entity.
- Anyone advising on whether to attack a freezing order at all, or only its terms.
The one global figure that did not survive
The claim against the first company and the claim against the second were separate claims for separate transfers. The order, however, simply froze the accounts of both up to 100,825 euro, which meant that each company was exposed to the full amount even though nothing like the full amount was claimed from it.
The appeal court held that the order had to be differentiated so that it bound 80,000 euro from the accounts of the first company and 20,825 euro from those of the second. It reached that conclusion even though the appellants had not raised the point expressly in their grounds of objection at first instance, because they had raised it indirectly: they had objected that the order should not have been granted at all, and their eleventh ground of objection complained that the order obstructed the ordinary conduct of their business and damaged their commercial interests. That was enough to open the door.
That is the practical yield of the case. An order in this form is vulnerable, and the vulnerability is in the arithmetic rather than in the merits.
What the appellants tried and lost
Everything else they argued failed, and the reasons are worth knowing because they are the reasons most attacks on a freezing order fail.
On urgency, they said the applicant had sat on its hands. The court held that what matters is when the facts that allow an applicant to come to court reach its knowledge, following Aspis Liberty Life Insurance Public Co Ltd v. Siakatidou (2014) 1(A) A.A.D. 637. The owners obtained access to the accounts in July 2018, one of them came to Cyprus in mid August to instruct advocates, and the action was filed on 19 September 2018. That was not delay. The fact that proceedings had already been started in the Netherlands on 27 July 2018 made no difference.
On the risk of dissipation, they said no evidence had been produced that they intended to move anything. The court answered that no such evidence is needed. On the authority of C. Phasarias (Aut. Centre) Ltd v. Skyr. Leonik (2001) 1(B) A.A.D. 785, the question is the likely effect of alienation or encumbrance on the satisfaction of a judgment, and what is required is the probability that satisfaction of a judgment in the plaintiff's favour would be hindered.
On delay as an equitable bar, the court refused to hear the argument at all, because it had not been raised in the grounds of objection below.
On jurisdiction, they relied on an arbitration clause in a management agreement and on article 8 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, saying the dispute belonged in the Netherlands and that pursuing it here fragmented the litigation. The court noted that the management agreement had been signed between a Greek company that was not a party to these proceedings and the third defendant personally. The two appellant companies were neither parties to it nor connected with it. A clause in somebody else's contract does not displace the jurisdiction of the Cyprus court over the claim against you.
They also asked that the order be confined to the two accounts at the bank where the money had been traced. The court refused, because confining it would weaken the very purpose of the order. The bank had told the court that the frozen balances came to roughly 45,000 euro, well short of the claim, and the court treated that as an additional indication of insufficient assets.
A note on how the grounds were drafted
The court paused to make a point about the appeal itself. The second ground of appeal contained three distinct alleged errors: urgency, risk of dissipation, and delay. Citing Dimitriou v. KPMG Ltd, Civil Appeal 311/2014, 24 January 2023, it repeated that a ground of appeal is composed of the identification of the error and the reasons that establish it, and that without either the ground is defective. Where the alleged errors concern different matters, separate grounds should be filed so that the issues are stated clearly.
This is not housekeeping. Grounds that bundle several complaints together are liable to be rejected as defective without the merits being reached.
What this means in practice
- Ask for a separate figure against each defendant. If you are freezing the assets of two companies, work out what is claimed from each and put those two numbers in the order. A single global sum invites exactly the amendment that succeeded here and hands the other side a partial win on appeal.
- If you have been served with a lump sum order, check the arithmetic first. The appellants failed on urgency, on dissipation, on delay and on jurisdiction, and still walked away with the order against the second company cut to 20,825 euro. The narrow technical point was the one that worked.
- Put every objection in the grounds of objection. Delay was never argued because it was not pleaded below. Whatever you intend to say on appeal has to be on the record at first instance.
- Do not expect the court to demand proof of an intention to dissipate. Respondents routinely argue that nothing shows they were about to move money. That is not the test, and arguing it wastes the opportunity.
- Move once you know, and record when you knew. Urgency is measured from knowledge. The affidavit that sets out the date access to the accounts was obtained, and what was done in the weeks after, is what defeats an allegation of delay.
The appeal was dismissed in all but that one respect, and the appellants were ordered to pay 3,000 euro plus VAT in costs, a figure the court reduced by 25 per cent to reflect their partial success. Applications of this kind turn on the affidavit that supports them and on the precise wording of the order sought, which is where freezing orders and litigation and arbitration meet.
Questions we are asked
What are the conditions for an interim order in Cyprus?
Section 32 of the Courts Law 14/1960, as explained in Odysseos v. A. Pieris Estates Ltd and others (1982) 1 A.A.D. 557, requires three conditions to be satisfied cumulatively before the balance of convenience is even considered. There must be a serious question to be tried, there must be a probability of success in the action, and it must be difficult or impossible to do complete justice at a later stage if the order is not granted. Only then does the court weigh all the relevant factors in the balance of convenience.
When does the clock for urgency start running?
From the moment the facts that enable the applicant to come to court reach the applicant's knowledge, not from the moment the underlying events happened. In this appeal the transfers were made well before, but the ultimate beneficial owners only obtained access to the company's bank accounts in July 2018. One of them travelled to Cyprus in mid August to instruct advocates, the action and the application were filed on 19 September 2018, and the court held urgency was satisfied. The intervening summer vacation did not count against the applicant.
Do I have to prove the defendant intends to dissipate assets?
No. The court expressly rejected the argument that evidence of an actual intention to alienate or encumber assets is required. Following C. Phasarias (Aut. Centre) Ltd v. Skyr. Leonik (2001) 1(B) A.A.D. 785, what counts is the likely effect of any alienation or encumbrance on the satisfaction of a judgment that may eventually be given. The test is the probability that satisfaction of the judgment would be hindered, not the defendant's state of mind.
Why is urgency more than a formality?
Because it is a jurisdictional condition, not a discretionary factor. When a court hears only one side it departs from natural justice and from the principle of audi alteram partem, and article 9 of the Civil Procedure Law, Cap. 6, governs that departure. If urgency is absent the court does not assume the ex parte jurisdiction at all, and its absence is an independent ground for setting the order aside regardless of the merits.
Can an arbitration clause stop a Cyprus freezing order?
Not where the defendants are strangers to the agreement that contains it. The management agreement here provided for arbitration in the Netherlands, but it had been signed between a Greek company that was not a party to the Cyprus proceedings and the third defendant personally. The two appellant companies were not parties to it and had no connection with it, so the clause did not displace the jurisdiction of the Cyprus court over the claim against them.
Can I raise delay for the first time on appeal?
No. Delay as an element of the general principles of equity was not pleaded in the grounds of objection at first instance, and the court applied the settled rule that a matter not raised below cannot be raised on appeal. If you intend to argue that an applicant sat on its rights, the point has to appear in the grounds of objection filed against the application, not in the notice of appeal.
What happens if my accounts hold less than the frozen sum?
The order still bites on every account rather than on one named account. Here the bank told the court that the combined balances came to roughly 45,000 euro against a claim of 100,825 euro, and the court treated that shortfall as evidence of insufficient assets that strengthened the case for keeping the freeze wide. Asking the court to confine the order to the accounts already identified was refused, because it would defeat the purpose of the order.
Sources
- Efixon Investments Limited and another v. Panisa Holdings Limited, Civil Appeal E90/2020, Court of Appeal of Cyprus, 10 September 2026
- The Courts Law of 1960, 14/1960, CyLaw
- Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Klitos Platis
Advocate, Partner
Kleanthous & Platis LLC, Nicosia · Published 17 September 2026
Need advice on your own matter?
Send us the documents and a short description at office@kleanthousplatis.com and we will reply within one business day.
Or use the enquiry form, message us on WhatsApp, or call +357 22 680 330.
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.