Phoebus, Christos Clerides & Associates LLC is a leading Cyprus-based law firm founded in 1950 by Phoebus Clerides, former Minister of Justice and Member of Parliament. His son, Dr. Christos Clerides—graduate of King’s College London and former MP, National Council member, and Cyprus Bar Association President—later led the firm. Now under the third generation—Phoebe Cleridou, Alexandros Clerides, and Constantinos Clerides—the firm upholds its legacy of excellence, specialising in litigation and dispute resolution. For over 75 years, it has represented clients in complex cases across all levels of Cypriot courts. Its practice spans civil, commercial, constitutional, administrative, criminal, and human rights law. The firm also advises on corporate, commercial, contractual, real estate, and banking matters with a focus on dispute prevention. With 16 experienced legal professionals, the firm combines tradition with a client-focused approach, earning a strong reputation for advocacy, integrity, and legal precision.
In a unanimous judgment given on the 12th of June 2025, the Supreme Court of Cyprus reaffirmed that a mortgage creates an autonomous primary obligation, independent of the lender's ability to prove a debt against the mortgagor personally.
This article from Phoebus, Christos Clerides & Associates LLC (Clerides Legal) is most popular:
in European Union
Constantinos Clerides’s articles from Phoebus, Christos Clerides & Associates LLC (Clerides Legal) are most popular:
in European Union
Phoebus, Christos Clerides & Associates LLC (Clerides Legal) are most popular:
within Law Department Performance and Transport topic(s)
Civil Appeal No. 287/2015 | 12 June 2025
In a unanimous judgment given on the 12th of June 2025, the
Supreme Court of Cyprus reaffirmed that a mortgage creates an
autonomous primary obligation, independent of the lender's
ability to prove a debt against the mortgagor personally.
The case involved mortgages granted by guarantors to secure
banking facilities issued to a third-party company. While the trial
court had dismissed the lender's monetary claim against one
guarantor due to evidentiary deficiencies, it still ordered
foreclosure on the mortgaged properties. The appellants argued that
this was inconsistent and challenged the validity of the mortgages
due to vague terms—particularly in relation to interest,
charges, and legal costs.
The Supreme Court rejected both grounds of appeal, holding
that:
A mortgage agreement can exist independently of an enforceable
monetary judgment against the mortgagor.
The mortgage documents sufficiently specified the maximum
secured amount and the applicable interest—whether fixed or
floating—thus complying with Section 21(1)(c) of the
Immovable Property (Transfer and Mortgage) Law, Cap. 9.
The Court also noted that any new legal arguments raised for the
first time on appeal could not be entertained.
A mortgage is a standalone legal obligation. Challenges based on
alleged vagueness will fail if the principal, interest, and
additional charges are ascertainable by reference to the mortgage
documents.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
