IPPT20250814, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink
Application for leave to change the claim rejected (R. 263 RoP). An application must explain why such change was not included in the original pleading.
Leave shall not be granted if, all circumstances considered, the party seeking the amendment cannot satisfy the Court that (a) the amendment in question could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage; and (b) the amendment will not unreasonably hinder the other party in the conduct of its action. Leave to limit a claim in an action unconditionally shall always be granted.
Request for exchange of further written pleadings rejected (R. 36 RoP, R. 222 RoP).
Parties are entitled to make references to what was said at the oral hearing, subject of course to the duty to not misrepresent cases or facts. If the opposing party experiences a need to nuance or correct statements it made at the oral hearing, it can do so in the Statement of grounds of appeal.
IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink
Request for simultaneous interpretation into Mandarin Chinese rejected (R. 109.2 RoP).
In the absence of any consent by the Court to hear witnesses or experts at an oral hearing in a language other than the language of the proceedings, and absent any interpretation need for the judges, a Request for simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing must be justified by the requesting party. If R. 109.2 RoP is applied, the arrangements for simultaneous translation are made by the Court. The costs are initially borne by the parties but can ultimately be compensated as costs of the proceedings. If, on the other hand, R. 109.4 RoP is applied, the party engages the interpreter and the costs are borne solely by that party (R. 109.4 and .5 RoP).
