Appeal Decision

1. When applying R. 263 and R. 305 RoP, the Court of First instance has discretion. The scope for review on appeal is consequently limited. The appellant is required to establish that the Local Division went beyond the boundaries of its discretion and could not reasonably have reached the decisions in the impugned orders. 2. R. 263 RoP requires that the application shall explain why a requested change or amendment of case was not included in the original pleading. This means that the reasoning must be included in the application. It does not prohibit that the precise wording of the requested amendment is set out in one or more annexes, such as amended Statements of claim with and without tracked changes. 3. 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 of such a person at an earlier stage, the involvement of the other parties with that person’s allegedly infringing acts, the effect on the other parties if the party is added as a party and the stage of the proceedings. The level of the duty of presentation and proof of such circumstances is lower when dealing with a request under R. 305 RoP than when dealing with the case on the merits. The weighing of the evidence provided, the weighing of the relevant circumstances and of the interests of the parties and procedural efficiency is at the discretion of the Court.

- Amendment of claim (R. 263 RoP), adding a party (R. 305 RoP)