UPC_CoA_586/2024

METHOD AND MEANS FOR BROWSING BY WALKING

AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
220.3	security for costs — discretionary review admissibility requires prior CFI leave-to-appeal request	Binding	A party who wants to appeal an order in accordance with R.220.3 RoP must, unless leave to appeal has already been granted in the order, request the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal (R.220.2 RoP).
220.2	leave to appeal — required before discretionary review	Binding	As laid down in R.220.2 RoP, orders other than those referred to in R.220.1 RoP require leave to appeal if, as here, they are not subject of an appeal together with the appeal against the decision.
158.3	security for costs — order must indicate right of appeal	Binding	While it is clear from R.158.3 RoP that an order for security shall indicate that an appeal may be lodged in accordance with Art.73 UPCA and R.220.2 RoP
355	security for costs — default decision upon non-provision	Binding	the judge-rapporteur informed Suinno that if it failed to provide adequate security within the time stated, a decision by default may be given, in accordance with R.355 RoP.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
73	security for costs — right of appeal	Binding	There was no indication in the order that an appeal may be lodged in accordance with Art.73 UPCA and R.220.2 RoP (see R.158.3 RoP).

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CoA_454/2024	security for costs — discretionary review admissibility conditions	Binding	see CoA order of the Standing judge on 21 August 2024, UPC_CoA_454/2024, APL_44552/2024, para 21

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.