Cap. 9 stopped excluding hearsay and gave the court a statutory checklist for weighing it, a right to summon the maker, and video evidence from a witness abroad.
The rule that a witness may only say what he saw himself was abolished for Cyprus civil cases some time ago, and a good deal of litigation is still conducted as though it were not. The Evidence Law, Cap. 9, replaced exclusion with weight, and gave the court a statutory list of what weight depends on.
Hearsay comes in
Section 24(1) provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, hearsay is not excluded from any proceeding before any Court merely because it is hearsay.
There is a proviso, and where it applies matters. It allows the Court, at any stage, not to accept hearsay evidence where it considers that this serves the purposes of the proper administration of justice, and it is expressed to operate in criminal proceedings.
Two limits keep the rule in proportion. Section 24(2) provides that the Part does not make admissible any evidence that would be excluded for a reason other than being hearsay: privilege, and every other exclusionary rule, survives untouched. And section 24(3) disapplies sections 26, 27 and 28 to hearsay that would have been admissible anyway without section 24(1).
Which is why the argument moved to weight
Section 27(1) directs the Court, in assessing the weight to be given to hearsay, to take into account all the circumstances from which an inference can reasonably be drawn as to its evidential value.
Section 27(2) then lists, without limiting that generality, eight particular matters:
- whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party adducing the evidence to have called the maker of the original statement as a witness;
- the interval between the original statement and the event it refers to;
- the degree of hearsay, that is, whether the evidence involves hearsay beyond the first degree;
- whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent the facts;
- whether the original statement was conveyed accurately or not;
- the context in which, and any purpose for which, the original statement was made;
- whether the hearsay evidence is materially different from the original statement; and
- whether the circumstances in which the hearsay is adduced appear to obstruct a proper assessment of its weight, or amount to an attempt to obstruct one.
Section 27(3) adds a general standard on top: in assessing weight the Court takes particular account of whether the party could have produced the best available evidence.
Read together, that is a checklist a party can prepare against before trial. The first item is the one that decides most disputes: if the maker could reasonably and practicably have been called and was not, the statement is worth less, and the other side will say so.
The right to summon the maker
Section 26(1) gives the answer to a statement put in without its author. Where a party adduces hearsay and does not call as a witness the person who made the original statement, any other party may, with the leave of the Court, and before the adducing party closes its case, summon that person in order to cross-examine him on the original statement.
The Court may refuse leave where it considers that summoning the person is not, in the circumstances, reasonable and practicable, or is not necessary for the proper administration of justice.
Section 26(2) contains the sting. A witness summoned under the section is treated as though he had been summoned by the party who adduced the hearsay. The party that put the statement in therefore ends up with the author as its own witness, with everything that follows from that.
Two timing points matter. Leave is required, so this is an application rather than a subpoena. And it has to be made before the adducing party closes its case, which in practice means the decision cannot be left until closing submissions.
Evidence by videoconference
Section 36A(1) provides that in any criminal or civil proceeding the Court may, if it considers it in the interests of Justice, allow a witness who is outside the Republic to give evidence by videoconference.
Section 36A(2) defines videoconference as the use of image and sound transmission technology, or any other arrangement, by which the witness, although absent from the courtroom, can see and hear the persons in the courtroom and, conversely, those in the courtroom can see and hear the witness.
Two things follow from the words of the section. It is confined to a witness who is located outside the Republic, so it is not a general power to conduct hearings remotely for convenience. And it is a decision for the Court on the interests of justice, so it is applied for on the facts of the particular witness rather than assumed.
Bank books, and why a subpoena to the branch does not work
Section 22(1) makes a copy of an entry in a bank book admissible in all legal proceedings as prima facie evidence of that entry and of the matters, transactions and accounts recorded in it.
The conditions are in the next two subsections. Section 22(2) requires proof that at the time of the entry the book was one of the ordinary books of the bank, that the entry was made in the usual and regular course of business, and that the book is in the custody and control of the bank, with that evidence given by a manager or officer of the bank either orally or by affidavit. Section 22(3) requires further proof that the copy has been compared with the original entry and found to be correct, again orally or by affidavit, by the person who made the comparison.
Section 22(4) is the practical rule. A banker or bank employee is not obliged to produce any bank book whose contents can be proved under the section, or to appear as a witness to prove the matters, transactions and accounts recorded in it, except under a court order made specifically for that purpose.
So the copy plus the two proofs is the ordinary route, and compelling a banker to attend is the exception that needs its own order.
What this means in practice
Stop arguing that a statement is inadmissible because it is hearsay. In a civil case section 24(1) has already answered that. The argument that pays is the section 27(2) argument about what it is worth.
Ask why the maker was not called. It is the first item on the statutory list, and where the answer is that it would have been reasonable and practicable to call him, the weight falls.
Decide early whether to summon the author. Section 26(1) needs the Court's leave and has to be used before the other side closes its case, and section 26(2) means the consequence lands on the party that adduced the statement rather than on you.
For a witness abroad, apply rather than assume. Section 36A is available in civil proceedings and is decided on the interests of justice, and it only reaches a witness who is outside the Republic.
For bank records, prove the copy rather than summon the banker. Sections 22(1) to 22(3) give the route, and section 22(4) explains why the subpoena on its own will not do it.
Questions we are asked
Is hearsay admissible in a Cyprus civil case?
Section 24(1) of Cap. 9 provides that, notwithstanding any other law, hearsay is not excluded from any proceeding before any Court merely because it is hearsay. The proviso that lets the Court decline to accept it at any stage, where that serves the proper administration of justice, is expressed to apply in criminal proceedings. Section 24(2) preserves every other exclusionary rule: the Part does not make admissible evidence that would be excluded for some reason other than being hearsay.
If the other side puts in a statement, can I make its author come to court?
Section 26(1) allows it, with two conditions. Where a party adduces hearsay and does not call the maker of the original statement, any other party may, with the leave of the Court, and before the adducing party closes its case, summon that person for cross-examination on the original statement. The Court may refuse leave where summoning the person is not reasonable and practicable in the circumstances, or is not necessary for the proper administration of justice. Under section 26(2) a witness summoned that way is treated as if summoned by the party who adduced the hearsay.
How does the court decide what a hearsay statement is worth?
Section 27(1) directs the Court to all the circumstances from which an inference can reasonably be drawn about the evidential value. Section 27(2) then lists eight particular matters: whether it would have been reasonable and practicable to call the maker; the interval between the statement and the event; the degree of hearsay, meaning whether it goes beyond the first degree; whether anyone involved had a motive to conceal or misrepresent; whether the original statement was conveyed accurately; the context in which and the purpose for which it was made; whether the hearsay is materially different from the original statement; and whether the circumstances of its introduction obstruct a proper assessment of its weight.
Can a witness abroad give evidence by video?
Section 36A(1) allows it in any criminal or civil proceeding, where the Court considers it in the interests of Justice, for a witness who is outside the Republic. Section 36A(2) defines videoconference as the use of image and sound transmission technology, or another arrangement, by which the witness, though absent from the courtroom, can see and hear the persons in the courtroom and they can see and hear the witness. The section is confined to a witness located outside the Republic and the decision is the Court's.
Can I compel a bank to bring its books to court?
Not without an order made for that purpose. Section 22(4) provides that a banker or bank employee is not obliged to produce any bank book whose contents can be proved under the section, or to appear as a witness to prove the matters, transactions and accounts recorded in it, except under a court order made specifically for that purpose. Section 22(1) makes a copy of an entry in a bank book prima facie evidence of the entry and of the matters recorded, and sections 22(2) and 22(3) set the conditions: proof that the book was one of the bank's ordinary books, that the entry was made in the usual and regular course of business, that the book is in the bank's custody and control, and that the copy has been compared with the original entry and found correct.
Sources
This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Klitos Platis
Advocate, Partner
Kleanthous & Platis LLC, Nicosia · Published 23 August 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.
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.
Your address is used for these updates and nothing else.
More on this: Arbitration in Cyprus is two statutes, not one, What a Court Case in Cyprus Actually Costs, Bringing a Claim Without a Lawyer in Cyprus, Cyprus consumers are represented without opting in, Being sued in Cyprus?.