Case No. CO-2850-2005

43.The first claimant was incorporated and its name registered in England in 1997. It is not unlawful in England and Wales to promote holidays in North Cyprus. The name of the company which combines the words “North Cyprus” and “Tourism” can be taken as not being “offensive” in the opinion of the Secretary of State (see section 26(a)(c) of Companies Act 1985). It is elementary that it is an independent entity existing as a matter of English law and entitled to pursue its lawful objects. Its objects as set out in its Memorandum and Articles of Association include to act as “travel agents, tour operators … advertising and publicity agents” and to “provide” all “services in connection therewith” including, as the name declares, the promotion of tourism in North Cyprus.44.The second claimant is a UK company. It has no association with the government of TRNC. It promotes holidays and tourism to North Cyprus. It is an independent commercial entity existing as a matter of English law to pursue its lawful objects which it asserts have been directly affected by the ban, both in so far as it extends to the first claimant, and extends to prevent it from advertising on its own account.45.Mr Allen submitted that:(1) the claim is not justiciable because TRNC has no right to claim justice from the courts and the claims of each of the claimants fall for the same reason;(2) it is an abuse of the process of the court for TRNC to appoint an agent for the purpose of seeking the assistance of the court; and(3) neither of the claimants has a sufficient interest to bring the claim.In truth, as he recognised, the contentions depend for their success upon the same arguments.