"(α) Το ποσό των Δολλαρίων ΗΠΑ 327.500 και/ή το ισάξιο τους σε Λίρες Κύπρου που αντιπροσωπεύει την αξία φορτίου από 1396 χαρτόνια τσιγάρων Marlboro το οποίο φορτώθηκε στο Εναγόμενο πλοίο Zim Iberia για μεταφορά του από το λιμάνι SAVANNAH (ΗΠΑ) στο λιμάνι Λεμεσού, δυνάμει της φορτωτικής με αρ. 51235 ημερομηνίας 24.4.96 για λογαριασμό και/ή προς όφελος των Εναγόντων και που προτού φτάσει στο λιμάνι της Λεμεσού μεταφορτώθηκε στο πλοίο Zim Odessa, το οποίο δεν παραλήφθηκε και/ή το οποίο απωλέσθηκε και/ή κλάπηκε και/ή υπέστη ζημιά,

(β) Το ποσό των Λ.Κ.2.620 που αποτελεί το ναύλο που πλήρωσαν οι Ενάγοντες στους Εναγόμενους 1 για τη μεταφορά του φορτίου και/ή για τη μεταφορά δύο εμπορευματοκιβωτίων που περιείχαν 1396 χαρτόνια τσιγάρων Marlboro που παραλήφθηκαν κενά για το οποίο ναύλο οι Ενάγοντες δεν έλαβαν οποιοδήποτε αντάλλαγμα και/ή αντιπαροχή και/ή η αντιπαροχή των Εναγομένων 1 απέτυχε,

(γ) Το ποσό των Λ.Κ.1.430,73 που αποτελεί το ναύλο που πλήρωσαν οι Ενάγοντες για να εισάξουν άλλη ποσότητα τσιγάρων προς αντικατάσταση του απωλεσθέντος και/ή κλαπέντος και/ή μη παραληφθέντος φορτίου τσιγάρων αεροπορικώς, πλέον το ποσό των Λ.Κ.916 που αποτελεί τους δασμούς επί του πιο πάνω ναύλου και το οποίο αποτελεί επακόλουθη ζημιά και/ή απώλεια (consequential loss and/or damage), για τους πιο κάτω λόγους:

(ii) για ιδιοποίηση (CONVERSION) του αναφερθέντος φορτίου και/ή για κατακράτηση τούτου και/ή άλλως.".

"The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he may be bound by the result of an action and the question to be settled therefore must be a question in the action which cannot be effectively and completely settled unless he is a party.".

"There were many cases decided on it; but I need not analyse them today. That was done by Devlin, U., in Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd.. He thought that the rule should be given a narrow construction, and his views were followed by John Stephenson, J., in Fire, Auto and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Greene. I am afraid that I do not agree with them. I prefer to give a wide interpretation to the rule, as Lord Esher, M.R., did in Byrne v. Brown. It seems to me that when two parties are in dispute in an action at law and the determination of that dispute will directly affect a third person in his legal rights or in his pocket, in that he will be bound to foot the bill, then the Court in its discretion may allow him to be added as a party on such terms as it thinks fit. By so doing, the Court achieves the object of the rule. It enables all matters in dispute 'to be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon' between all those directly concerned in the outcome.".

"These in effect are the general principles is so far as the present proceedings are concerned governing the addition of a defendant either on the application of the defendant or of a person not already a party. The point therefore for determination is whether the aforesaid principles apply to the facts of the present case. What is claimed by the defendant ship is that she is not liable to the plaintiff company because Messrs. A. L. Mantovani & Sons Ltd. were not acting as her agents. If that is so then the defendant ship cannot have applied for the joinder. If the defendant is successful in proving that, it would be for the plaintiffs to ask for the joinder or bring another action. As stated in the Supreme Court Practice 1970 p. 168 "prima facie the plaintiff is entitled to choose the person against whom to proceed and to leave out any person against whom he does not desire to proceed". If on the other hand the defendant is unsuccessful by proving that A.L. Mantovani & Sons Ltd. were not their agents then the defendant will be adjudged to pay and that will not directly affect A. L. Mantovani & Sons Ltd. in their legal rights or in their pocket, in the sense that they will be bound to foot the bill. There is no claim for contribution or indemnity or damages against A.L. Mantovani & Sons Ltd. by the defendant in case the latter is found liable towards plaintiffs.".

"Under this rule, the Court has power to add or substitute a defendant on the application of the defendant and also of a person not already a party and in either case against the wishes of plaintiff, but a defendant against whom no relief is sought by plaintiff will generally not be added against the wish of the latter. (Hood-Barrs v. Frampton & Co. (1924) W.N. 287).".

"The owners sought to be joined as co-defendants are foreign nationals and resident out of the jurisdiction. That, on the authorities, is a factor to be taken into account in weighing and deciding how the Court should exercise its discretion. Adding these defendants, it will cause delay and no further delay than is necessary should be caused to the plaintiffs. It will also cause real hardship and difficulty to them, as they will have to proceed against defendants who are outside the jurisdiction and with whom there was no privity of contract and whilst being unaware of their exact relationship and the terms of their agreement regarding the liabilities of the defendants and the owners vis-a-vis each other. An otherwise simple issue will be further complicated and embarrassment would be caused to the plaintiffs. All these, are good reasons for not adding the owners as co-defendants.".