UPC CoA 317/2025

Court of Appeal order denying Yealink's request for simultaneous interpretation at the oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings. The Court held that a party must justify the need for court-ordered simultaneous interpretation; the fact that the defendant is based in a non-English speaking country or that company officials will have difficulties following proceedings does not generally justify such an order. The same applies to interpretation at the parties' own cost. A party may instead engage a private interpreter at its own expense with two weeks' notice to the Registry (R. 109.4 RoP).

The Court of Appeal issued an order in Barco v. Yealink proceedings concerning an application for leave to change the claim (R. 263 RoP) and a request for further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP). The court denied leave to introduce a subsidiary claim that broadened the previous claim scope without justification for the late filing. The court also addressed the boundaries of permissible references to first-instance oral hearing statements on appeal.