THE Supreme Court has upheld a Nicosia woman’s appeal against Laiki Bank concerning a lawsuit against her about a furniture hire purchase contract, which someone else took out in her name.
“The behaviour of the bank as well as its employees, clearly constitutes dishonest and ethically inappropriate behaviour, since they knew well that they had not financed the appellant, nor did they deliver any furniture, while falsely claiming they did finance her and deliver the furniture,” the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision said.
On May 11, 2001, Maria Iacovou from Strovolos filed a lawsuit in the Larnaca district court against Laiki, asking for a court decision against her to be reversed.
The initial decision had been taken on April 4, 2000, ordering Iacovou to pay around £8,000 after she ‘defaulted’ on a December 18, 1997 furniture hire purchase contract she had allegedly signed with a Larnaca branch, with two other women as guarantors.
At the time, a bank employee swore under oath that Iacovou had paid £1,608 but had been delaying payment since September 18, 1998.
Iacovou did not object to the initial lawsuit against her and gave the court summons to her former employer – one of the two guarantors – who said she was going to sort out the matter since the loan concerned her.
But when she did not sort out the matter, the bank decided to move against Iacovou.
In her suit, Iacovou argued that she had never received money or furniture from the bank and that she had never even set foot in the particular branch.
She also argued that her signature had been forged following a conspiracy between the bank’s employees.
Despite the testimony of a police graphologist, who testified in court that the signature was indeed forged, the court threw out the case because it did not prove fraud on behalf of the bank.
The court said there was no testimony concerning who had forged the signature and rejected the suit, ordering Iacovou to pay the expenses.
Iacovou’s lawyer Dr Andys Pantelides filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which unanimously reversed the decision, slamming the bank for its behaviour.
The Supreme Court ordered Laiki to pay for all the expenses past and present.
Pantelides told the Cyprus Mail that he had also reported the case to the police and understood they were investigating the forgery, though he did not know who the suspect was.
According to Pantelides, another similar case has been settled out of court while a third was withdrawn by the bank.
The bank yesterday would not comment on the decision or reply to questions concerning the employees who had been involved in the cases.
“The decision will be studied by the bank,” a spokesman said.
