Second Assault: Civil Case 197/2008: Decision 18-12-2014


District Court of Famagusta
Before: S. Loukidou-Vasiliou, District Court Judge

Action number: 197/2008







Date: 18.12.2014
For the Plaintiff: Mr Georgiades
For the Defendants: Mr Vasilakkas


The Plaintiff is claiming against defendants 1, 2 and 3 special and general damages, as well as exemplary and/or punitive damages plus interest and costs as a result of unlawful assault against him by the defendants and causing him bodily harm and other damage.

According to the legally documented allegations made in the amended claim report, on 14.01.2008, in the village of Frenaros in the district of Famagusta village, defendants 2 and 3 stopped the hire car that was being driven by the plaintiff and after throwing him out of the car, dragging him to the ground, together with defendant 1, they attacked him and hit him in the face and all over his body in front of village residents, thus humiliating him publicly and causing him physical injuries.

In their joint defence, the defendants deny the plaintiff’s allegations. Putting forward their own allegations in relation to the incident, they allege that the plaintiff intentionally cut off the car that defendant 2 was driving, since the plaintiff knew where his vehicle was located due to the fact that he was following and videoing defendants 1 and 2 at that particular time or/and repeatedly. Defendants 1 and 2 further allege that, as a result of the collision of the above-mentioned vehicles, they have suffered material damage and physical injuries and consequently are counter-claiming damages against the plaintiff.

On the plaintiff’s part, the plaintiff himself made a submission (ME2) and produced a total of six witnesses, the Registrar of the District Court of Larnaka-Famagusta, Fotini Larkou (ME1), constable Marios Christou (ME3), doctor Vasilios Baka (ME4, and doctor Nikolaos Nikolaou (ME5). In addition, with the assistance of the competent court authorities, doctors Ian Robert Drever and Lan Yeoh (ME6 and 7) from the United Kingdom made their submissions by means of videoconferencing.

For the defendants’ part, no evidence was produced. In addition, during the initial stages of the hearing proceedings and in particular, prior to the commencement of the cross-examination of the plaintiff, the defendants for their part admitted the fact that they attacked the plaintiff. Furthermore, during the hearing proceedings, it became clear that the defence did not doubt that the plaintiff had suffered physical injuries as a result of the attack. As a result, all that remains to be decided upon is the matter of the type and extent of the physical injuries and material damages that were suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the attack and hence, the determining of the amount of damages.

During the hearing proceedings, it was further declared that the content of the statements given by police officers in relation to the incident at issue (Exhibits 28, 31, 33 and 34), the number of photos (Exhibits 12, 13 and 14), and the plaintiff’s payment receipts for obtaining the medical certificate and police report (Exhibits 55 and 56) were accepted facts. Finally, it is noted that the defendants’ counter-claim was not put forward during the trial and consequently, I consider that it has been abandoned.

The counsel for both parties in their submissions made a relevant reference to the evidence and referred to the relevant case law in support of both of their clients.

Defendants 1 and 2 at the material time were directors of a specific company that dealt with the construction and sale of buildings. From the evidence produced as well as the content of numerous published court judgments, it derives that there have been other previous court battles between the defendants and the plaintiff. The conclusion of a contract of sale triggered the above, on the basis of which the plaintiff, who is a British national, at the material time, was 37 years old, had agreed to purchase from the company of defendants 1 and 2 a house in Cyprus, more specifically, in the village of Frenaros. There was a breach of the aforementioned contract. Of course, the liability for the breach of contract does not concern this case. It should just be noted that, according to the plaintiff’s version, at the material time, he became aware that this specific house had then been sold to a third party. Based on the evidence submitted, it also appears that the plaintiff has been attacked by defendants 1 and 2 in the past as well. In this regard, a relevant action was filed and damages were awarded in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of a judgment dated 25.1.2011 (Exhibit 46). In addition, with regard to the incidents that this case concerns, criminal action 4155/08 was filed against defendants 1, 2 and 3 and since they were found guilty of the charges that they faced, a suspended prison sentence was imposed upon defendants 1 and 2, and a fine of 2000 Euros on defendant 3 (exhibits 39 and 40).

Everything that witnesses of each party have stated at court is duly recorded in the transcripts which have been kept and it is being taken into consideration by the Court together with the submitted exhibits as a whole, so there is no point in repeat all of these. A relevant reference to the evidence is made when it is considered necessary for the purpose of evaluating witness evidence. It should also be mentioned that this case, which is a civil case, is being decided upon on the balance of probabilities and a witness may become reliable either wholly or in part (see Agapiou v Panagiotou (1988) 1 AAD 263 and Attorney General v Manoli (1995) 2 AAD 207). It has also been mentioned that the selective acceptance of part of the evidence of one witness is not objectionable (see Charis Christou v Evgenia Khoreva (2002) 1 AAD 454).

Evidence (ME1)

Evidence of ME1 was of a formal nature, it was not doubted and, consequently, is recorded at this stage as having been accepted. This witness was called in her capacity as the Registrar of the District Court of Larnaka – Famagusta, and she submitted exhibits from the file on criminal case 4155/08 during the hearing proceedings in the aforesaid case, as well as the written text of the judgment and the penalty that had been imposed upon defendants 1, 2 and 3 (Exhibits 1-45). The exhibits that were acknowledged by the witnesses were referred to in their evidence.

Evidence of the Plaintiff (ME2)

The Plaintiff submitted an affidavit (Document A and A1), the content of which formed part of his main witness examination. Describing the incident according to his own version, he mentioned that on that particular day, he had gone to see the house that he had bought from the company of defendants 1 and 2 to take photographs and measurements with a view to using them as evidence in the court proceedings that were pending at court. He asked his friend, Martin Mott, to accompany him and to use a video camera to video him from a distance so that he would have evidence that he was not doing anything bad. In addition, he himself was wearing underneath his jacket a small camera (“microcamera”, as he himself referred to it), with which he was also recording the scene. It was produced before the court as exhibit 6 and he acknowledged that it was the camera that he had hidden under his jacket. When he arrived at the place, he met there the new buyer of the house, who complained about the fact that he was taking photographs of her house without her permission and he saw her speaking to someone on the phone. Then his friend, Martin Mott, who was at a distance of 100 metres away, called him and mentioned to him that he had been cut off by Defendant 1. Then, the Plaintiff started heading towards the place where his friend was. While he was driving in the direction of Frenaros village, a car, driven by Defendant 2 with Defendant 3 as the co-driver, crashed into the plaintiff’s car. When he got out of the car, the defendant 2 punched him in the face and his nose started bleeding. He tried to use his mobile phone but Defendant 2 grabbed it from his hands. Then, while he was sitting on the stairs of a coffee shop, Defendant 1 appeared on the scene and was shouting in a threatening manner. The word “camera” was heard and he realised that defendants 1 and 2 had seen the micro-camera that he had hidden under his jacket. Then, he took the camera in his hands and started running but defendants 1 and 2 managed to catch up with him and after they had thrown him on the floor, Defendant 1 stood on his face. Defendant 2 hit him, mainly on the lower part of his back and stomach, while defendant 3 was holding him down and trying to get the camera, which he eventually got. After this incident, he was taken to hospital, where he stayed for six days and then his friends took care of him for weeks. He did not return to the United Kingdom since, he claimed, he did not want his daughters to see him using crutches. When he was walking normally again, a problem with his balance was discovered and he was suffering from dizziness. He visited a specialist doctor in the United Kingdom, who diagnosed benign paroxysmal positional vertigo that had been caused by the “crushing” of his head. Finally, the plaintiff, while describing how he felt as a result of the trauma, mentioned that when he returned in the United Kingdom, he had suffered a nervous breakdown and had to stay in hospital for three weeks.

He acknowledged and adopted the content of the written submissions that he gave to the police in relation to the incident, Exhibit (1,2,5,7 and 11). Furthermore, he acknowledged the Exhibits 3 and 4 referring that it was the shirt and the jacket he was wearing when he was battered and on which there were stains of blood.

Acknowledging the contents of the photographs, Exhibit 9 and 10, that illustrate the scene of the incident, and Exhibit 16 referring to the camera that he was holding when he was battered for the first time in 2006 by the defendants 1 and 2. He claimed that the camera that he was holding during the scene was worth £ 410 and he testified behind the Court the invoice that was dated on 12.06.2007, Exhibit 47A, and he also testified the receipt that was dated on 3.01.2008, Exhibit 47B. He claimed that he paid €450 to the car rental company for the car that he was using the day of the scene, for the damages caused to it by the collision with the car of the defendants’ and he testified the receipt that was dated on 26.01.2008, Exhibit 48. He also mentioned that the value of his mobile phone taken by the defendants was worth £129 and he testified the receipt of it, Exhibit 49. Moreover, he claimed that he paid the amount of £150 for medical expenses and he testified the voucher, Exhibit 50. The Plaintiff also testified the medical reports. Exhibits 51,52 and 53. He claimed that because of the attack suffered by the defendants, he faces up bodily and psychological problems today, he suffers from depression and he takes medication. He added that the symptoms of dizziness and nausea presented because of the injury to his ear have been lasting for six months and received physiotherapy. Finally, he claimed that for his presence as a crown witness in the criminal case 4155/08, he had to spend on flights, accommodation and movement around €9.965,46. Therefore, he testified documents package behind the Court, Exhibit 54.

During the cross-examination of the plaintiff, he said that during his stay in the hospital, he underwent Computed Tomography and he was examined by many doctors but he does not remember whether examined by a coroner. Asked about this, he clarified that when he said during his examination that the referring house that agreed to be bought by the defendants, had been registered to him, he meant that he had registered the Contract of Salewith the Land Registry. He claimed that the reported residence was illegally sold to a third part and as a consequence, he filed in court a private criminal case against the defendants 1 and 2, the Company and the new buyer. Answering to related questions, he mentioned that during 2007, in some cases he contacted with the new buyer of the house by phone and by email to express his views on the issue. He agreed that when he was battered for the first time in 2006 by the defendants 1 and 2, he was holding the camera and he was out of the reported residence. He also agreed that the website that there is in the internet belongs to him and on this page there is taped material taken during various meetings with the defendants 1 and 2, without them knowing of such action and without their consent. Asked in relation to it, he mentioned that Exhibit 47A refers to the purchase of the camera’s lens, while Exhibit 47B refers to the purchase of the camera, stating that the attached brochure on the Exhibit 47A shows the model of camera that he was holding when he was battered. In relation to the receipt on Exhibit 49 and the attached invoice, he explained that the receipt indicated the same transaction number that is indicated on the invoice, that was issued in his name. Asked about Exhibit 54, he answered that the expenses associated with his presence behind the Court are not concerned to it, but the Exhibit refers to the expenses in relation to his presence behind the Court to the criminal case 4155/08. He also mentioned that he requested, through his lawyer, to be paid all these expenses by the prosecution, but he still has not received any answer. Indicated on the medical report of the General Hospital of Larnaca, it was mentioned that when he was discharged from the Hospital, the given instructions referred that he should visit the Hospital again after a few days in order to be re-examined again by the doctors, the Plaintiff declared that probably he did not return for a re-examination.

Evidence of the Plaintiff (ME3)
The Policeman 3488, Marios Christou, adopted all the contents of his written testimony, Exhibit 19. He visited the Plaintiff in the Hospital where he was bedridden and he received his written testimony. He also received investigating deposition in relation to the attack and he accused in writing the defendants. The defendant 2 indicated to him the place where the camera was hidden and the Plaintiff was holding the day of the attack. Asked about the photographs of Exhibit 15, he mentioned that they were given to him by the Plaintiff on 23.1.08, who told him that they were taken by his friend. It is noticeable that these are ten photographs, four of which illustrate the Plaintiff being injured. The rest of the photographs illustrate some body parts that have bruises without revealing the face of person that they belong to. During his cross-examination, he mentioned that the photographs were not being taken in his presence and he accepted that six photographs did not reveal the Plaintiff’s face.

ME3 testimony was typical and the submitted questions during the cross-examination were illustrative. As a result, it is noticeable that his testimony is admissible evidence.

Evidence of the Plaintiff (ME4)
ME4 is a general practitioner doctor and he is working at the First Aid Departure of Ammochostos Hospital. He acknowledged and adopted all the content of his written submissions (Exhibit 27). On 14.1.2008, at the First Aid Departure, he examined the Plaintiff and he found that he brought lesion in the left zygomatic bone and behind the mandible on the left side. He also shows a large swelling on the right waist. An orthopedic was invited and then he recommended a surgical examination to be done. Then, the Plaintiff was transferred to the General Hospital of Larnaca. When he was asked about that, he clarified that the right waist located in the back area and specifically under the shoulder blade. Referring to the photos are shown on Exhibit 14, the photos that were taken on 15.1.08 at the General Hospital of Larnaca during the forensic examination, he indicated on the photographs 3-6 the injuries that were brought by the Plaintiff. Specifically, he pointed out on the third photograph a lesion and small scratches on the back of the left mandible on temporomandibular joint area, on the fourth photograph he pointed out lesion in the region of the left cheekbone below the left eye and minor abrasions, on the fifth photograph he indicated lesion and small abrasions on the back of the left mandible, and on the sixth photograph he indicated swelling in the right loin located below the shoulder. Answering to some relevant questions, he referred that bruises may occur at a later time of the injury. Finally, he referred that the injuries brought by plaintiff are consistent with the appearance of dizziness and headache, insomuch bruises cause pain, dizziness and headache and sometimes the injured has the sense of balance loss.
At the cross-examination stage, he clarified that some injuries brought by plaintiff were not described on his written submissions because these injuries had not been appeared since he examined him. He also referred that the Plaintiff did not complain to him about dizziness and headache. In relation to the photographs of Exhibit 15, he referred that he had no idea who took these photos and then he referred that that photographs 5-10 do not reveal the person to whom they belong. Answering to a relevant question, he referred that bruises usually occur up to 24 hours after an injury.

Evidence of the Plaintiff (ME5)
ME5 referred that he is a general surgeon and he works at the General Hospital of Larnaca. He adopted his written submissions that he had prepared in relation to the Plaintiff’s injuries, Exhibit 32. At his medical report, he referred that the Plaintiff was examined on 14.1.2008 after his transport from the Hospital of Ammochostos. He complained about headache, dizziness, nausea, abdominal pain, right renal area, waist and cervical vertebrae of the spine. During the clinical examination, it was found sensitivity on the right abdomen, right renal area, abrasions and bruising on the face and sensitivity at cervical vertebrae of the spine and the lumbar spine. It was also found that there were bruises below the surface of the right thigh and of the right renal area. The diagnosis of the traumatic brain injury, fracture of cervical vertebrae of the spine and fracture of the right renal area were found. He was introduced in the surgical clinic in order to be monitored. The following day, he was examined by an orthopedic, who diagnosed fracture of cervical vertebrae of the spine and the lumbar spine and he recommended analgesics.

During his hospitalization, the Plaintiff complained about pain on the right renal area, lumbar spine and difficulty in walking. He was discharged on 19.1.08 and he was given instructions to rest and be re-examined at the external infirmaries. ME5, when he had to answer to a relative question, he told that for those injuries that the Plaintiff had, it was required short stay in hospital. In relation to the photographs of Exhibit 15, he referred that the injuries that are shown in photographs 5,6,8 and 9 are consistent with the findings unlike to the injuries that are shown in photographs 7 and 10. Finally, he referred that bruises may occur up to 24 hours after an injury.

At the cross-examination stage, ME5 clarified that traumatic brain injury is any blow to the head and based on the patient’s symptoms and the clinical examination, it can be divided into light, medium and heavy. As far as Plaintiff’s case is concerned, the traumatic brain injury was light. He also referred that Plaintiff’s examination with a CT scanner was negative. He supported that in the Plaintiff’s case, the diagnosis that he suffered from traumatic brain injury, was based on the injuries he had, and on the symptoms he appeared, dizziness and headache, and on the findings of the clinical examination that appeared injuries to the face. Finally, he explained that the plaintiff had any trauma to the kidney but he had an external injury on the right renal area.

Evidence of the Plaintiff (ME6)
ME6 referred that he is a doctor with specialization in psychiatry. He adopted all the content of his medical report on 18.5.2009, that he prepared in relation to the Plaintiff (Exhibit 53). At his medical report he refers that the Plaintiff suffers from emotional disorder provoked by considerable stress due to injury of the attack that took place in Cyprus and due to the difficulties that he faced in relation to the purchase of the property. It is stated that the Plaintiff receives group and individual psychotherapy which will continue for several months. He also takes medication to stabilize the situation of his health and reduce the stress and anxiety he feels. Supporting that the sentimental disorder that the Plaintiff feels, is the result of the attack he suffered, he referred that his situation presents characteristics of depression and anxiety, and also supporting that the Plaintiff had lost its mood, he referred that the Plaintiff presents lack of mood and sleep. He added that when the Plaintiff visited him for the first time, he was thinking about hurting himself and up to date he continues to present stress and depression and as a result he takes antidepressants.

At the cross-examination stage, answering to relative questions, he supported that his findings were based on an objective examination of the plaintiff. As he mentioned, in order to have a reliable diagnosis, the procedure he followed was based on stable medical methods. He claimed that in order to conclude in a diagnosis, he usually discusses with the patient through interviews and observes his behavior. In the Plaintiff’s case, he observed that all the things that he mentioned to him and generally all its behavior were consistent with the diagnosis of sentimental disorder. For this diagnosis, he took account of the witness of the Plaintiff’s wife who was present at the last meeting in October 2013, but saying that his duty is to treat the patient and not to investigate whether he is telling the truth. ME6 was aware of the Plaintiff’s attack at the past. Specifically, he mentioned that the first attack took place in 2006 and the second attack took place in January 2008. At a relative question, he mentioned that the symptoms described in the medical report are expected to occur within days or weeks after the attack, but he examined the Plaintiff on the 16th February 2009 for the first time. He mentioned that the Plaintiff told him that the symptoms he presented, occurred from the time of the attack. He also supported that the General doctor who examined him, diagnosed depression in July 2008, but probably the depression could be existed. He was not aware of the Plaintiff’s symptoms before the 16th February 2009.

Evidence of the Plaintiff (ME7)
When ME7 was asked about his qualifications, he mentioned that he is an expert since 1989 at Audio Vertibular Medicine and he explained that it is a specialty of otolaryngology. He adopted all the content of his letter dated on 12.5.2008 (Exhibit 51). He examined the Plaintiff only on May 2008. Reading and simultaneously explaining the content of Exhibit 51, he mentioned that in January 2008 while the plaintiff was in Cyprus, he was attacked and as a result he was injured at his head. He hospitalized for about six days, and when he rose up, he presented acid paroxysmal vertigo that was lasting for a few minutes. Since then, the situation has been improved gradually, but he continues to have vertigo when sitting, lifting and expanding his head. During the Plaintiff’s examination, he found that his hearing had not been affected and the tympanum were untouched, although there is very little «chondrinsi». The attack did not provoke any damage to the middle ear and the hearing measurements were normal. He reported that the measurement of movement functions in the brain was good but the “tachymanouvra” of cerebral motion made him dizzy. Examining the inside of the ear which processes the balance, the measurement showed that there is little damage on the balance within the inner ear. The ear measurement showed that there is normal hearing in both ears. When examined the Plaintiff, he found that there was there “paroxysmal positional vertigo” and as he claimed it means that it has to do with both ears. ME7 supported that these symptoms are due to two main reasons, and he told that either presented to older people, something that does not fit to the case of the plaintiff that was neither 40 years, or to persons who have been wounded in the head. In his letter, Exhibit 52, he referred that the Plaintiff’s history is consistent with the diagnosis of “benign paroxysmal positional vertigo”, which, as stated, is almost certain to be the result of the attack suffered by the Plaintiff. Finally, his letter refers that although the situation of the plaintiff gets better, a treatment will be required by a balance therapist.

At the cross-examination stage, ME7 mentioned that he did not ask for re-examination the Plaintiff at any stage and he does not know whether he has become better. Answering to a relative question, he mentioned that the harm presented by the plaintiff, i.e. vertigo syndrome, is provoked by serious injury in the head. He was not able to say whether the injuries which caused the vertigo syndrome should be visible at the Computed Tomography because as he mentioned it was not a matter that falls within his specialty.

Evaluation Evidence
During the hearing behind the Court, I had the chance to pay attention to all the persons who gave their evidence under oath. I watched the way they were giving their testimony, their answers and their behavior at the witness dock, and I am able to evaluate their evidence. The factors that I took into consideration, without being exhaustive in assessing the evidence, is the immediacy of responses, the clarity they contained, the way in which the answers were given by the witnesses, the contradictions that existed in their responses and the relevance between those claimed and the claims at the pleadings.

The witness that was given by ME1 and ME3, as already said, it has been accepted.

Concerning to ME4, ME5, ME6, ME7 having examined their occupation, their experience, and their qualifications, which are not controversial, and bearing in my mind all the principles that determine when a witness is an expert, I came to the conclusion that these witnesses are experts (Evangelou v. Ambizas (1982) 1 CLR 41). According to case law, the experts’ behavior in the dock is the same as every other common witness, factor by which reliability can be diagnosed (see Nicolaou v Stavrou (1992) 1(B) CLR 746). Adding that it is well-known the principle that the behavior that some special witnesses, such as doctors, have on the witness dock, is not such an important factor in assessing their reliability, as important is in the case of a witness who relies on the events (Athinis v. Republic (1990) 2 C.L.R. page 47,62). According to the case law, the expert in exception to the general rule that prohibits the expression of opinion by a witness, he is able to express his opinion regarding to issues that are consistent to his specialty (see Vasillico Cement Work V. Stavrou (1978) 1 CLR 663). In such case, the expert provides the Court with all the necessary scientific criteria for the assessment of the accuracy of his conclusions, in a way that the Court will be able to form its own independent judgment by the application of these criteria on the facts shown by the evidence (see Philippou v. Odysseos (1989) 1 CLR 1). Moreover, the Court is not bound to adopt the views of an expert, even if they remain without cross-examination. The testimony of the experts is offered in order to be presented the scientific basis on which they worked, so as to assist the court to draw its own conclusions that will form the independent judgment which is based on the facts that have been proved by the testimony.

Evidence of the Plaintiff (ME2)
According to the Plaintiff’s evidence, it has been said that he was attacked by the defendants and he was injured, which in turn is an admissible fact.Moreover, it is indisputable by his words, that the attack took place in the presence of other people and this caused disruption and insult to him.

It is ascertained that during his sworn evidence, the Plaintiff was exorbitant and it was obvious that he attempted to present his injuries more serious than they really were. All the above are demonstrated through the evaluation of the medical evidence that presented in the court and through those that supported himself in relation to the injuries and damages he suffered. His evidence on this issue not only was characterized by exaggeration,but also it was not supported perfectly by the medical testimonyas it is assessed below in my decision. In an attempt to exaggerate for his injuries, he supported that when he was discharged from the hospital, for a while he was using crutches, something that is not consistent with the testimony of his doctors who did not report that the plaintiff could not walk properly when he was discharged from the hospital. On the contrary, ME5 mentioned that for the type of injuries that the Plaintiff had, it was required hospitalization for only a few days. In addition, while he was claiming that when he was discharged from the hospital, he continued to have some problems and he was taken care by his friends for weeks and there was a problem with his balance, but he could not remember if needed to visit the hospital again for re-examination, as recommended by his doctors.

He also tried to accuse the defendants for other health problems that he was facing, which was not sufficiently supported by the medical evidence presented for this purpose in the court. While he attempted to persuade the court that his psychological problems are exclusively due to the attack and the beating he suffered by the defendants, when he was asked about it during the cross-examination, he mentioned that the nervous breakdown he suffered, was due to a combination of factors. It is also noticeable that the Plaintiff’s claims that the blows he received presented brain tumorand discomfort in his ear, were not supported by the relevant evidence of ME7.

Inconsistency to his claims –as they were in his pleadings- can be observed in the fact that in his claim report he referred that the Defendants took him out of the car by pushing him with force and throwing him to the ground, while in his sworn evidence he referred that he descended from the car alone and asked for the Defendant 2 to behave properly. Exaggeration can also be observed on the Plaintiff’s evidence in relation to the property damages that he stated that he suffered from the attack, to which there is detailed reference below in my decision.

According to the following findings, it is clear that the Plaintiff was not completely honest in relation to the facts surrounding the case. At the cross-examination stage, it appeared that he did not reported honestly on the events of the case, in order to relieve any responsibility himself and present that the attack he suffered was completely unprovoked. While at the stage of his main examination he claimed that in relation to the sale of the said housing to a third party is pending a criminal case, during his cross-examination he accepted that the case was dismissed by the court. He also failed to mention in his main examination, that in the past he attempted to make contact with the new buyer of the home by telephone and via e-mail andinstead of her answering he received a letter from her lawyer. According to what he mentioned during his cross-examination, he referred that he sent through his lawyer a letter inviting the new buyer to leave the house. It was revealed that during the last episode of the previous attack he suffered by defendants 1 and 2, again he possessed a camera and he stood outside the reported residence. Finally, answering to related questions asked by the defense counsel, he admitted that before the two attacks he suffered by the defendants, he has registered in the website that he had posted online, taped material which was received during the meetings with the defendants 1 and 2, without them knowing about it and without their consent.

The Plaintiff also has not convinced the Court for the truth of his assertion and as a result it cannot be accepted that the day of the event the only purpose of his visit to the house was to take measurements to be used as evidence in the court. During his cross-examination, his answers over this matter were unclear and indefinite. Moreover, he did not claim that he had the expertise or other qualifications to obtain measurements that could be accepted in court and even measurements that,as he claimed, hereceived while he was in the street outside the residence.All the above raise questions about the veracity of the Plaintiff in relation to the course of events, but also in relation to the real reason for his visit to the place that is the reported residence.Also,it is very important the revelation that his friend Martin Mott afterhis own suggestion was present to the place and not only was he filming the scene using a camera, but also he had a small camera mounted onto his hat.

He told that he felt humiliated, desperate and distressful because of the attack because he went to see “his own residence”, as he mentioned. The plaintiff’s statement is not characterized by sincerity, since, according to other statements, he went there with a friend and they filmed the scene both armed with hidden cameras while they were aware that the said house was occupied by a third person. Being asked whether, when going that day in the area of the residence, expected similar behavior to that encountered in the past and in particular when he was last attacked by the defendants 1 and 2, the Plaintiff avoided to answer and he told that the camera carrying himself was hidden, while the camera on his friend’s hat was visible and was a “shield” to prevent any attack. Then, in contradiction with all the above, he claimed that he did not believe that the defendants would attack him for second time because he just stared at the residence. In connection with the website that he uploaded online, he said that he had personally informed the defendants 1 and 2 of its existence and even he told them that he would attempt to identify more “victims” to be added to the website. In relative submission that before he posted the reported website online, he had not been suffered any attack by the defendants, the Plaintiff avoided to answer and claimed that the website was not defamatory.While initially he denied that the Court issued a decision in which it was decided that the content of this website was defamatory for defendants 1 and 2, then he accepted it and said with contempt to the Court which issued the reported decision, that an appeal has been submitted by him.

Evidence of the Plaintiff (ME4 and ME5)
Both doctors who examined the complainant after the attack he suffered by the defendants, i judge that they told the truth in the Court. The testimony in relation to the injuries of the plaintiff in most points is identified. A few discrepancies between their findings that are due to the time when everyone examined the plaintiff, does not appear capable of weakening their credibility. Their findings were based on clinical and other medical examinations in which the plaintiff was submitted, and they are consistent with the injuries indicated by the plaintiff in the photos of Exhibit 14 and in some photos of Exhibit 15. In conclusion, the findings of the two doctors are accepted by the Court except for the conclusion of ME5 that the plaintiff had been suffered traumatic brain injury. This happened because his conclusion was not supported by any satisfactory information. I think that this is an arbitrary conclusion which seems to be based solely on the fact that the plaintiff complained of dizziness and headache without relying on specific medical tests or documented by scientific criteria. Also, ME4 has not claimed that the plaintiff has suffered a head injury, but he only said that the injuries brought by the applicant justified the appearance of dizziness and headache.

Evidence of the Plaintiff (ME6)
In relation to the evidence of ME6, I accept that by examining the applicant, he diagnosed that he presented affective disorder with features of anxiety and turmoil. But I reject the remaining conclusions which the witness had reported without giving specific information and data to support them. He failed to explain clearly and with appropriate scientific documentation how he concluded that the symptoms of the plaintiff to the characteristics of depression were due to the beating he suffered by the relevant attack. While arguing that the symptoms of the Plaintiff were expected to appear within days or weeks after he had been attacked, however he examined the claimant for the first time in February 2009. Also, the view that depression that was presented by the plaintiff existed before the examination was not scientifically documented, but only based on assumptions and what had been said by the Plaintiff. Additionally, he noted that according to the statements of the general practitioner who examined the plaintiff earlier, he diagnosed that he suffered from depression in July 2008, i.e. six months after the attack.

ME6 did not appear to explain precisely the above conclusions and failed to cite evidence from which to ascertain whether he followed a procedure based on stable medical methods to arrive at a reliable diagnosis. On the contrary, during the cross-examination, he diversified somewhat from his initial view, and he said that the psychological situation of the plaintiff, was accounting for the largest percentage of the attack that he suffered. A view that came from the witness in general, vaguely and not provide the court with any scientific criteria so that it can check the accuracy of the conclusions of which as it was shown, relied only on what’s been said by the Plaintiff. Without any scientific documentation elsewhere in his testimony, he said that the psychological problems of the plaintiff “probably” would have not appeared, if he had not be attacked. Answering questions in relation to the content of the report which refers that the psychological problems of the plaintiff not only are due to the attack he suffered but also they are due to the difficulties he faced with the purchase of the said residence, he claimed that his opinion is based on one of the interviews he had with the plaintiff and the fact that an attack creates more stress than the process of finding a property. In any case, his views are not consistent with the facts as they emerged through the testimony and mainly what the plaintiff described in the court in connection with the “adventure”, as he called it, he had in his attempt to buy a residence in Cyprus. Also, it is noted that the plaintiff himself during his sworn evidence, said that the nervous breakdown that he claimed to have suffered was due to a combination of various factors. Therefore, in the basis of the above, it is acceptable to the testimony of ME6, his conclusion that any psychological problems in connection with depression characteristics that presented or until now are presented by the Plaintiff, are due to the attack that he suffered by the defendants. This, without rejecting that the plaintiff’s attack, caused to him upset and affront, which were also claimed by himself in his sworn evidence, without being doubted.

Evidence of the Plaintiff (ME7)
In connection with ME7 evidence, it can be observed that while he examined the Plaintiff as a specialist otolaryngologist, however, during his testimony he did not make any reference to the Plaintiff’s claim that the blows he received during the attack, showing tumor and discomfort in the ear for which special treatment needed. But he did not supported that when he examined the Plaintiff, he has identified the existence of tumor in the ear.

While he claimed that the damage presented by the plaintiff was provoked by severe head injury, he declined to give a clear answer whether such a serious injury should be seen in the examination of the plaintiff in CT. Answering to relative questions, he continued to say that he could not respond to this question because it was not within to his specialty.

His position was that the vertigo symptoms presented by the plaintiff were the result of the attack that has been entered with generality and not be supported by specific facts and data. While he said that these symptoms occur if there is a serious head injury and not minor injury, to another point of his cross-examination, he expressed the opinion that he remains to the same opinion even if the plaintiff has not been suffered a serious head injury. While it can be observed through his testimony that he was really not aware of the plaintiff’s injuries, however, he effortlessly reported that he presented the above mentioned vertigo syndrome because of his injury in the attack. He noted that the position that the plaintiff in the attack was kicked in the head, it is not entirely consistent with the plaintiff’s testimony, who had not claimed that he was kicked in the head, but that the defendant stepped on his face. It is also important that the ME7 has not considered necessary to see the tests in which the plaintiff was submitted after his injury, either to take any details in relation to these nor asked the others treating doctors to give him any information about his medical history, even stating that, without any scientific evidence, that for him the best source is only patient, not his doctor.

All the above show that ME7 cited in the court opinions that were general and not sufficiently justified. He presented his conclusions without them being supported and documented by the necessary scientific criteria to enable the Court to distinguish the correctness and to reach its own conclusions. He claimed in a simplified manner and without the necessary scientific documentation expected from an expert, that this vertigo syndrome presented by Plaintiff only comes from two causes, the old age or the head injury. But then revising somehow his position, he said that “usually” the vertigo syndrome is caused by the above reasons. While the certainty with which he tried to support that the vertigo symptoms presented by the plaintiff were due to the attack he suffered, it can be proved as a fault and even by the content of the letter of the Exhibit 51 where at some point indicates that it is “almost certain” that the syndrome is due to the attack. Legitimate questions remain unanswered and without explanation by ME7, resulting from the fact that, while according to the content of Exhibit 51 the plaintiff felt symptoms of vertigo just when he got out of the hospital bed, however during his hospitalization in the hospital, he did not refer to his treating doctors to check it and he did not go to the hospital in order to be re-examined, but he did it after a few months later. It is also noted that doctors who examined the plaintiff in Cyprus did not report that the plaintiff complained at any stage to have vertigo and unsteadiness in his balance.

In the light of all the above, I consider that the findings of ME7 are arbitrary and lacking scientific documentation so they do not allow the court to arrive at any safe conclusion. Therefore they cannot be accepted and discarded.

Given the above assessment, I reached to the following findings. At the relevant time, between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 there were differences that led them to the court. These differences aroused from the purchase by the applicant of a residence by the company of the defendants 1 and 2. On 14/01/08 the Plaintiff together with his friend Martin Mott, with separate cars, they went in the place where is the reported residence. The friend of the plaintiff had in his possession a video camera as well as a second camera was mounted on his hat, he remained in the car from a distance, in accordance with the instructions of the plaintiff, he was filming while the Plaintiff was taking photos and measurements of the reported residence. While the plaintiff himself possessed a small camera which was hidden inside the jacket with which he was filming by himself. While he was out of the house and took photos, he met the new buyer of the house, which after having complained about the fact that he was taking photographs without her permission, then he saw her talking to someone on the phone. Immediately after that, his friend Martin Mott phoned him, who was within 100 meters away, and he stated that he had been excluded by the defendant. Then the plaintiff went to the place where his friend was. While driving towards the village center Frenaros, a car driven by the defendant 2 and defendant 3 was a passenger, it collided with the car that was driven by him. After getting out of the car the defendant 2, punched him in his face. He tried to use his mobile phone but the defendant 2 took it from his hands. Then, after he sat on the steps of a cafeteria, the defendant 1 appeared on the scene, who was shouting in a threatening way. The plaintiff heard the word “camera” and realized that the defendants 1 and 2 saw the small camera that was hidden in his jacket. Then the plaintiff took the camera in his hand and began to run but the defendants 1 and 2 managed to catch him and after they dropped him to the ground and the defendant 1 pushed him in the face. The defendant 2 hit him in the lower back and stomach while the defendant 3 held him down and tried to take his camera, which was finally taken by him. The plaintiff, after the incident was transferred to the department A of the Hospital of Ammochostos and then he transferred to the General Hospital of Larnaca. Doctors who examined him found that he had bruises and minor scratches on the back of the lower jaw bone, in the left area of the temporomandibular joint, bruises and minor abrasions in the area of the left cheekbone under his left eye, lumps in the right loin and bruises through surface of the right thigh and right renal member area. He complained about headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, right renal area, waist and cervical vertebrae of the spine. During the clinical examination, it was noticed susceptibility of right abdomen, right renal area and susceptibility of waist and cervical vertebrae of the spine. He was hospitalized in a surgeon clinic in order to be examined. The next day, he was examined by the orthopedist, who diagnosed a contusion of waist and cervical vertebrae of the spine and recommended analgesics. He was discharged on 19/01/08 with instructions to rest and to be re-examined by doctors in the external department of the hospital. Finally, a finding of the court that the attack against the plaintiff was in a public place in the presence of third parties and caused him inconvenience and affront.

Legal Aspect
The tort of assault is under Article 26 of the Law of Tort, Chapter 148. According to the article 26 of the saying Law, “attack is to intentionally use any kind of violence against the person of another, or hit, touch, move, or otherwise directly or indirectly, without his consent, or with his consent if the consent for this was obtained by fraud, or at attempted or threatened by an act or gesture to use such violence against another person, if the person attempting or threatening the use of force causes to the other the belief which is established at reasonable cause, that he has at this time the intention and ability to fulfill that goal.”

The provisions of the above article reveal that in order to be established the tort of assault, it must be proved the threat of violence or use of violence, proof of intent and the lack of consensus. The tort is actionable per se, that is meaning that the damage is not required.
In the decision of the case Letana v. Cooper, (1964) 2 All E.R 919, the following were reported:

“If one man intentionally applies force directly to another, the plaintiff has a cause of action in assault and battery, or if you so please to describe it, in trespass to the person.”

In the Halsbury’s Laws of England book, 3rd edition, volume 38, page 760, par. 1251, under the title “Trespass to the person (classification)” the following are reported:

“Trespass to the person is a wrong committed against the personal security liberty of any man by another. There are three varieties of trespass to the person, namely, assault, assault and battery, and wrongful imprisonment. The act complained of must be either intentional or negligent. The onus of proof lies on the plaintiff who must plead either that the act was intentional or that the defendant was negligent, stating the facts alleged to constitute the negligence. The act must be done against the will of the person who sues for the wrong.”

With regard to the first component, the contact must be direct, either with the body of the defendant, or through an organ. In the English case law Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968) 3 All E R 442, it was admitted that, violence may be exercised either directly from the body of the offender or through an organ, which is controlled by his actions. So it is attack, either the hand of the offender, that is in contact with the body of the complainant, whether an organ, which the offender holds in his hand and uses it to bring violence. The intention is the factor which distinguishes the crime of aggression from the crime of negligence. It is required the proof of intent violence against the person of another. But where violence is a result of an act of negligence, then the basis of the pleading should be negligence and not attack (See also, Rasid v. Braybrook (1972) 8 jsc 1092).

In this case, in the basis of the above findings of the court, there is no doubt that the acts of the defendant against the plaintiff, within the behavior described as trespass to the personality or person and which constitutes the tort of assault. Also, it must be notified that in this case the attack on the plaintiff declared as an admissible fact. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the plaintiff has suffered injuries from the attack. These injuries are described in the findings of the court above. Consequently, it remains the compensation issue.

General Damages
Based on the principles that should govern the determination of the amount of general damages, it should be mentioned that the compensation for tort, aims to restore the injured party and not the punishment of the offender. (see decision in the case Dimitris koumpari v. Dimou Christou Foutri (2001) 1(B) C.L.R. 921).

In the decision of the case Ioannou Paraskevaides (Overseas) Ltd and another v. Christofis (1982) 1 CLR 789, the following were mentioned:

“The object of an award of damages is to do justice to the loss and damage of the injured party without imposing an inordinate burden upon the tort-feasor. (See Fletcher v. Autocar Transporters Ltd. {1968} 1 All E.R. 726; Constantinou v. Salahouris (1969) 1 C.L.R. 416). In other words the award must be socially acceptable. Consequently, social ethos at the material time is invariably a consideration relevant to our task particularly with regard to non pecuniary loss. Pecuniary loss being more amenable to mathematical calculation is less dependent on social norms. The object of the exercise is to arrive at a figure at the end of the process, that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the base.”

Furthermore in the decision of the case Georgios Tampouras v. Kiriaki Kolani (2008) 1 C.L.R. 384, the following were mentioned:

“Regarding wider adequacy of compensation given, is given and accepted by the Court the upward trend in compensation for the human pain and suffering, bearing in mind the importance of compensation (A. Panayides Contracting Ltd. V. Charalambous (2004) 1 C.L.R. 416). The compensation performance should also reflect the market value of money in time so a reasonable manner to be approached at least monetary compensation for damage (Lankuttis v. Nikola (2002) 1 CLR 1128). Certainly, it is correct the other finding in law that previous decisions on the issues of compensation are not necessarily binding precedent (G & L Calibers Ltd v. Lemesianou (2003) 1 CLR 948), while the upward trend in compensation is not a road map to justify providing increasing amounts in any case (Spyros Melas and Eleni Ltd v.Politi (2003) 1 CLR 590)”

As it has been repeatedly said, the compensations should constitute fair and equitable restoration of the plaintiff (Ioannou and Paraskevaides (Overseas) Ltd, above), but the court should not attempt to award damages for the full amount or make perfect financial rehabilitation (Paraskevopoullos v. Georghiou (1970) 1 CLR 116 and Xenophontos and another v. Anastassiou (1981) 1 CLR 521). On the other hand, the compensations should be socially acceptable.

Augmented- Punitive Damages
As it happens in any tort, in the tort of assault, the compensations are essentially compensatory in nature and are intended to the victim’s restoration. This may include aggravated compensations which within the usual compensation aimed at achieving the objective of the victim’s recovery to the situation prior to the commission of the offense. By an award of aggravated punitive damages, are enabled awarded damages, not as a measure of punishment of the defendant, but in order to reflect the increased amount of damage suffered by the dignity of the plaintiff because of the defendant’s conduct. They are rehabilitation compensations, which contribute to the rehabilitation of the affected dignity and pride of the victim and therefore, they are distinguished by punitive or exemplary damages, which intend to punish the offender and deter.

The issue of exemplary damages have been analyzed in the case Socrates Eliades v. Vassos Lyssarides (1979) 1 CLR 254. The case concerned an attack on room of “Hilton” hotel in the presence of several people. The Court of Appeal upheld the award of damages about £700, but finding that in fact were awarded by the first instance court as aggravated damages and not as exemplary damages, as the damages were given in reference to the sense of dignity and pride of the victim. As it is mentioned in the passage of Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (10th edition, pages 555-556):

“These “aggravated damages” are truly compensatory, being given for the injury to the plaintiff’s proper feelings of dignity and pride. Exemplary damages on the other hand, are not compensatory but are awarded to punish the defendant and to deter him from similar behavior in the future.”

The case Gregoriades v. Kyriakides (1970) 1 CLR 120 was concerned about unprovoked attack in the area of Nicosia District Court. At the first instance and then on appeal, it was said that the transaction constituted assault under aggravating circumstances and that there was need for awarding exemplary damages. The court of Appeal augmented the amount of general damages from £100 to £300.

An extensive analysis of the issue was made in the case Papakokkinou and others v. Kanther (1982) 1 CLR 65 in which the following have been referred in the page 77:

“The fact is that conduct accompanied by a marked element of arrogance, insolence or malice, may justify an award of exemplary damages, particularly if it tends to humiliate the victim of the tort. Therefore, no conflict is discernible between the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gregoriades v. Kyriakides (1971) 1 CLR 120, and Eliades v. Lyssarides (1979) 1 CLR 254, and the decision in Rookes, supra. Arguably, the damages awarded in the above cases classify as “aggravated” an intermediate category between compensatory and exemplary damages; a kind of inflated compensatory damages inflated to the extent of indicating the disapproval of the Court of the conduct of the defendant but within the range of compensatory damages.”

An extensive analysis of the issue in the case was biased towards the adoption of a broader approach that allows an award of exemplary damages where the tort is so reprehensible as to merit punishment by civil law. Furthermore, with reference to the case Casell & Co Ltd v. Broome (1972) 1 All E.R. 801, it was booed the position that it is wrong to separate the general compensation from exemplary. In the end, the fee that should be paid, is an amount based on the overall perception of the facts of the case.
In the case Giannaki Erotokritou v. Eirinarchou Theodorou (1997) 1 CLR 1800 the president of the Supreme Court, Mr. Pikis, as it was then, confirmed the possibility of awarding punitive damages in cases of torts. Finally, in the case Adrian Holdings Ltd v. Cyprus Republic through the Attorney General (1998) 1 CLR 1836 it was confirmed the approach taken by the authority of the Cypriot courts, that the award of punitive damages allowed in cases where the defendant’s conduct is so reprehensible, so that appropriate punishment by a civil court should be enforced. Reprehensible is the conduct that is accompanied by intense arrogance elements, insolence or unfair incentive or when tends to humiliate the victim of the offense.

Because of the exceptional nature of punitive damages, they are awarded only where there are circumstances that give rise to such claims (Antoniou v. The Attorney General (1977) 2 JSC 275, Giallourou v. Nicolaou (2001) 1 CLR 558, Koumpari v. Foutri 2001 1B CLR 921). In the case of Karamesini (in the following the court decided that it was right not adjudicated “punitive” damages, underlining that such damages are attributed mainly when the objective is to punish the defendant as a sign of disgust with which the law treats such reckless behavior.

But the court has the discretion to award aggravated damages, where damages are necessary in relation to the feelings dignity, pride and generally attack of the victim (see Eliades v. Lyssarides (above), Nicolaou v. Episimou Paralipti (2009) 1 B CLR 1339, Constantinou v. Karamesini, (2011) 1A CLR 715). In this case, I think that these conditions are met, since the attack was carried out in a public place, was perceived by others and the Plaintiff felt humiliation and reduction of personality.

Specifying General Damages
The principles that guide the courts in determining the amount of general damages are summarized in the Case Charilaou v. Nicolaou (2003) 1 CLR 1460. Previous decisions are not binding precedent in the sense of principle of stare decisis, but provide guidance. It must also be taken into account of the continuous decline in the value of money. In the case Giannakis Erotocritou v. Karaoli, (1998) 1 CLR 445) it is noted that previous decisions regarding compensation only indicative value may have, because each individual case is different depending on the type and extent of the injury and the circumstances of each case.

I draw guidance from a number of decisions in which there is an analogy with the case to the extent of injury to the plaintiff, by making sure the necessary adjustments and keeping in mind that each case has its peculiarities and it is almost impossible to find cases with identical elements (see Spyrou . Charalambous (1989) 1 E CLR 298).

In the naval pleadings number 79/02, 80/02 and 82/02 James Harmsworth and Salamis Clory (2003) 1C CLR 1617, the plaintiff suffered from sprained neck and lumbar, left thigh hematoma and contusion of abdominal wall. It was placed cervical collar to her and provided analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs. She underwent physiotherapy. She developed post-traumatic stress. The amount of £25,000 was considered as reasonable compensation.

In the case Kasiana Charalambous v. Giannaki Anastasiadi (2003) 1C CLR 1709) where the plaintiff – appellant suffered from serious injury and a wound on the occipital skull, concussion, severe sprains and contusions neck chest, spine and lumbar, it was given to her the amount of £35,000.

In the case of Giorgos Constantinou v. Despo Avraam Stavro (1995) 1 CLR 453 where the claimant suffered from concussion, bruising and contusions of the right temporal scalp, bruising and pain of the lumbar spine and gastritis court awarded him £1,750 as general damages.
In the case Georgios Tampouras v. Kyriakis Kolani otherwise Kikas Kolani (2008) 1A CLR 384 a man aged 38 years had been suffered, among other, abrasions and bruises on the forehead and nose fracture with external piggyback slight displacement nose, slight deformity of the nose and deviated septum, the payment awarded general damages £4,000 were deemed manifestly inadequate and they were risen to £11.000 after the appeal.

In the case Vasos Adamidis, minor through his father and mother Georgios Avramidis and Stavroyllas Avramidou, who had the parental responsibility of him v. Kostas Chatzinicolaou civil appeal no. 139/2005 dated 25 September 2007, the claimant suffered bruises in the left eye, hematoma inferior turbinate, sprained neck, abrasions and soft tissue contusion of the left shoulder, elbow and forearm. The first instance court considered as fair and reasonable compensation the amount of £6,000. The Supreme Court considered the amount rather low, however not seriously inadequate to intervene.

In the light of all the above, having regard to the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries unsurprisingly led to him pain and suffering, and bearing in mind that the attack caused the plaintiff additional disruption and attack, I conclude that in the circumstances the rectum and fair amount for rehabilitation purposes is the amount of €13,000. This amount includes compensation for the injuries of the plaintiff, and aggravated compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant in his feelings and the blow suffered in dignity due to the behavior of the defendants.

Punitive Damages
Based on the above legal principles, the court without welcomes the conduct of the defendant for which indicates dislike, keeping in mind all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case and taking into account how behavior and the same the plaintiff, as described above, I consider that it is not the case that imposed an award larger amount, so the amount deemed as fair and reasonable for rehabilitation purposes to make adequate and for punitive purposes.

In this case is not clear from the facts that the defendants attack against to the plaintiff in order to make a profit nor that such behavior demonstrates the existence of manifest element of arrogance or unfair incentive. Instead, the entire testimony of the complainant revealed that the way he acted at the relevant time and by what had preceded in the past, he knew even the possibility that he would cause the defendants. As regards the damage to the feelings, honor and dignity of the plaintiff, the awards already augmented compensations which in combination with the general compensation, I think it is sufficient and therefore not enter adjudication issue of awarding exemplary damages.

Special Damages
The plaintiff is claiming additional and special compensations, as the details of special damages can be seen to the report claims (pleading), which are the following:
a. A camera that its cost is about €479,54
b. A mobile phone and its sim card £228,85 or €454,84
c. A jacket and a shirt…………………..£100 or €116,85
d. Expenses to repair the rented car €450
e. Hospital expenses…………………….. £150 or €175,32
f. Medical certificates………………………. €47,84
g. Medical report…………………………..£62,50 or €73,00
h. Police report……………………€85,00
i. Air tickets, subsistence, and car handling and rental in relation to the criminal case 4155/2008……………………………… €11.544,85
Based on the case law issue, the proof of special damages varies under strict. The plaintiff has the burden to prove by appropriate evidence, the amounts that constitute special damage, which he has included in its pleading. The damages must be proved by clear and specific information (see Eracleous v. Pitrou (1994) 1 CLR 239, Aleksandrou v. Ioannou (1996) 1 CLR 1157, Panayiotou v. Fragkiskou (1999) 1 A 687.
In this case, the plaintiff stated in costs caused by the disputed episode. It should be noted in advance that he has not provided the necessary evidence for the damage that requires the element no. c above, while it has been accepted as proof the payments made by the plaintiff to ensure medical certificate and police report Exhibits 55 and 56 for the amounts of €47, 84 and €85 respectively, elements f and h above.
In relation to the camera, element a above, the plaintiff testified in the court the invoice Exhibit 47A for the amount of £95, saying that it concerns the purchase of the camera lens and the Exhibit 47B, saying that this is the invoice of the amount of £315 that he paid for the purchase of the camera. Exhibit 47A found that this was an invoice and the receipt Exhibit 47B had not issued to the plaintiff’s name. Therefore, although the destruction of the said camera is not disputed, it has not been proven to the necessary extent that the plaintiff has incurred the above amounts.
In relation to the value of the mobile, element b above, also it is not disputed that it has been destroyed during the incident, the plaintiff submitted to the court the receipt and the undocked in this invoice. He explained that the receipt showing the same transaction number on the invoice, which was issued in its name. It appears therefore that the mentioned amount has been proved by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff failed to prove that he has paid the amount, element d above, for repair costs of the rented car. The receipt that he gave to the court Exhibit 48, is referred to the payment of the amount of €450 for the car rental and not for its repair. In any case, it should also be said that the plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the defendants are responsible for the collision of the cars.
As far as the other medical expenses are concerned, elements e and f, that it is required by the plaintiff to report his claim in the pleadings, in the process of evaluation of evidence, the court did not accept that the health problems that were reported during the testimony of the doctors associated with injury of the plaintiff in the attack. As a result, I do not consider that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of such sums.
The plaintiff additionally requires the amount of €11544.85, element i above, claiming that they were the costs incurred in relation to the presence of the relevant criminal case 4155/2008 in relation to the attack he submitted. Highlighting the general, vague and imprecise claim that he has paid approximately €9.945,46, he testified in the court a set of documents without giving any further explanation and without reference to their content and concerning each of them separately. It is also noticed that the plaintiff failed to specify the reported damage in his claim report.
It is settled in accordance with the case law that losses should not only be specified in the applications, but also to be proved rigorously. The case law requires a party to prove the damage with positive testimony (see Spyrou v. Chatzicharalambous, 1989 1 E CLR P.288, Heracleous v. Skafous Niki, naval case 92182/94 1 CLR p.510 Lazouras v. Skyllouriotou (1992) 1 CLR 168, Themistokleous v. Paraskeva (1992) 1 CLR 498, Elisabet Heracleous v. Renou Pitrou (1994) 1 CLR 239, Aloupou and Another v. Hadjigeorghiou and Another (1984) 1 CLR 475 and Mc Gregor on Damages, 15th edition, paragraph 23, page 15).
The plaintiff in this case, failed to narrow in the claim report of the alleged damage, element i above, and mostly failed to demonstrate the rigor that is required by case law. As a result, I do not consider that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of these existing funds.
On the basis of all the above, the total amount that the plaintiff is entitled to special compensations, is the amount of €284.68.

In the light of the above, a decision is published in favor of the Plaintiff and against the defendants 1, 2 and 3 together and separately for the amount of €13,000 as general and aggravated damages and the amount of €284,68 in the form of special compensations. As a consequence, a decision is issued in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the amount of €13.284,68.
This issue is a topic of interest that falls within the aim of the discretion of the court. In the case Foinikaridis v. Georgiou (1991) 1 CLR 475, inter alia, it is noted that one factor that cannot be overlooked is the way in which the action is promoted, since an unnecessary delay in promoting may have resulted in a limitation of the time scale setting of interest.
In this case, the attack took place on 14/01/2008, the lawsuit was filed on 17/04/2008 and the claim report on 24/10/2008. But there is a delay in the trial of the case, part of which is a fault of the plaintiff and therefore it is not fair to be deemed against the defendants.
The plaintiff on several occasions both before the start and during the hearing, asked for a postponement of the trial for reasons related to him, or for reasons relating to him, either for reasons related to his lawyer or his witnesses. An additional delay was caused by the modification of the claim report of the plaintiff for which preceded the hearing request, and then the examination of the request for further disclosure of documents.
Under these circumstances and without being not entirely possible to accurately calculate the delay time caused by the fault of the plaintiff, it is estimated at 14 months and therefore bearing in mind the date of registration of the claim report, I think fair to award statutory interest on the required sum from 01.01.2010 until redeemed.
Finally, the cost of the pleading, as it will be calculated by the Registrar and approved by the Court, are adjudicated in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The costs be calculated on the success scale treatment.
The counterclaim is dismissed for failure to promote the case, without any order for costs.

St. Loukidou-Vasileiou, D.J.
True Copy