Overview · Filed: —
APL_9191/2025
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppeal RoP220.2—
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 5
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 263 | amendment of statement of claim — discretion on appeal limited | Binding | When applying R. 263 and R. 305 RoP, the Court of First instance has discretion. The scope for review on appeal is consequently limited. |
| 305 | addition of party — discretion | Binding | When dealing with a request to add a person as a party under R. 305 RoP, when considering the interests of the parties and procedural efficiency, among the circumstances that the Court may take into account are: whether the claimant was or should have been aware of the alleged infringing acts |
| 263.2 | amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at earlier stage | Binding | the Local Division also could rightly conclude that the requirements of R. 263.2(a) RoP, that the allowed amendments could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, was complied with. |
| 340 | joinder of cases | Background | the issue of joining the cases based on R. 340 RoP would emerge |
| 23 | three-month period for statement of defence | Binding | by allowing the defendants the full three months period foreseen in R. 23 RoP for lodging their Statement of defence |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.