Section 28: Consolidation and transfer of cases

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 14001/2558 (2015)

   An order merely to bind case files together is not an order to try the cases together under Section 28, paragraph one; the separate cases do not thereby become part of one another.

   Although the parties and the underlying sale contract were the same, the trial court had only ordered the earlier red-number case files bound together with this case, not that the cases be tried together under Section 28, paragraph one. The earlier cases had already been finally decided, so they could not be treated as part of this case for purposes of setting aside execution.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1578/2551 (2008)

   A motion complaining that the court went on to hear a case without first revoking an earlier order that had transferred it away is in substance a motion to set aside irregular proceedings under section 27 paragraph one. Section 27 paragraph two confines such a motion: the aggrieved party may raise the objection at any time before judgment but not later than eight days after learning of the matter relied on, and must not have taken any fresh step after learning of the irregularity or have ratified it. A party who instead litigates on through the first court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court cannot afterwards ask to have the proceedings set aside.

   In January 1997 the first court held that the claim belonged to the Central Tax Court, set aside all proceedings from the acceptance of the plaint, and sent the file there. The President of the Supreme Court ruled that the Tax Court had no jurisdiction, the file was returned, and the first court gave judgment for the plaintiff without revoking its earlier order. The defendant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court, and only afterwards moved for the case to be reheard on the ground that continuing without revoking that order was improper. The Supreme Court held the motion to be in substance an application under section 27 paragraph one, which section 27 paragraph two confines to objections raised before judgment and within eight days of learning of the matter, by a party that has taken no fresh step since. Having litigated on at every level, the defendant could no longer ask to have the proceedings set aside.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4866/2541 (1998)

   Where claims are of the same nature and involve the same parties and are connected, a plaintiff may sue on them in a single case, and if filed separately the claims could be consolidated under Section 28.

   The Court held that where the claims shared the same nature, involved the same parties, and were connected, trying them together was convenient and the plaintiff could sue on them in a single case; had they been filed separately, consolidation under Section 28 would have been available. The Court separately addressed the plaintiff's combining of claims to reduce court fees.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.