Rule 357 – Decision by default (Court of Appeal)

1. Rules 355 and 356 shall apply mutatis mutandis, in particular where a respondent on whom a Statement of appeal and a Statement of the grounds of appeal have been duly served fails to lodge a Statement of response or where a party fails to file a Reply to a Statement of Cross-Appeal or translations ordered by the judge-rapporteur.

2. When considering whether to give a decision by default, the Court of Appeal may consider the merits of the appeal.

3. Rules 355 and 356 shall apply mutatis mutandis where the appellant fails to correct the deficiencies or to pay the fee pursuant to Rule 229.4 or to lodge the translations pursuant to Rule 232.1 within the period specified.

Case Law:

Court of Appeal

IPPT20250505, UPC CoA, Meril v SWAT
Due to inadmissible self-representation, the formal requirements for lodging a Statement of response have not been met (R. 235 RoP). A party not being allowed to represent himself or a co-applicant has to instruct an authorised representative and it is not  appropriate for him to lodge an application to change of representative pursuant to R. 293 RoP. Respondents failed to lodge a Statement of response as the submitted Statement of response is not signed by the stated new representative. Reasoned decision (R. 235.3 RoP) or default decision (R. 357.1 RoP): it is the discretion of the Court of Appeal to give a reasoned decision or a default decision. A reasoned decision (R. 235.3 RoP) is a lex specialis of the default decision (R. 357.1 RoP). This means that the remedy of R. 356.1 RoP – an application to set aside that decision within one month of service of the decision by a party against whom a decision by default has been given – applies mutatis mutandis to reasoned decisions. 

IPPT20250221, UPC CoA, Hanshow v Vusion

Application for default judgment dismissed (R. 357 RoP). The application for leave to appeal against a cost decision is considered to be a Statement of appeal and a statement of grounds for appeal (R. 221 RoP, R. 224 RoP). An application for the determination of costs is a summary procedure, decided in the first instance by the judge-rapporteur (R. 156.2 RoP) and in appeal by the standing judge (R. 221.4 RoP). The application always requires leave to appeal and there is no obligation for the standing judge to hear the other party before allowing the appeal. The application for leave to appeal under R. 221 RoP must already set out the grounds on which the appeal is based. Court fees in case of a granted leave to appeal against cost decision. If a party applies for permission to appeal against a decision on costs, it pays a court fee of € 1.500. If the appeal is allowed, the fee originally paid will not apply, but a fee of € 3.000 will be charged for an appeal against a costs order.

IPPT20241128, UPC CoA, Amycel
Appeal closed by a decision by default against appellant because of failure to pay regular fee (R. 357 RoP, R. 378 RoP, R. 378A RoP). The request to waive the additional fee ordered in the Order issued on 7 November 2024 denied; The Application for legal aid denied; The Appellant bears the costs of the appeal proceedings. The Application for legal aid is inadmissible. According to R.378A RoP, to be admissible, the application must contain a statement regarding the economic and financial situation of the applicant. The documents named in R.378A.1 (a) to (d) RoP shall be attached. The appellant has limited himself to declaring that he is a farmer from […] and that he cannot bear the costs of court fees without incurring financial hardship