Rule 320 – Re-establishment of rights
Content
1. Where a party has failed to observe a time-limit set by these Rules or the Court for a cause which,
despite all due care having been taken by the party, was outside his control and the non-observance of
this time limit has had the direct consequence of causing the party to lose a right or means of redress,
the relevant panel of the Court may upon the request of that party re-establish the right or means of
redress.
2. The Application for Re-establishment of rights shall be lodged with the Registry within one month of
the removal of the cause for non-observance of the time-limit but in any event within six months of the
non-observed time-limit. Within that time-limit a fee shall be paid for a Request for Re-establishment
of rights, in accordance with Part 6.
3. The Application shall:
(a) state the grounds on which it is based and shall set out the facts on which it relies; and
(b) contain the evidence relied on in the form of affidavits from all persons involved in the non-
observance of the time-limit and the persons involved in establishing the precautionary measures of due
care taken in order to avoid such cases of non-compliance.
4. The omitted act shall be performed or completed together with Application for Re-establishment
within the time-limit mentioned in paragraph 2.
5. There shall be no grant of Re-establishment of rights in respect of the non-observance of the time
limit mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 4 of this Rule.
6. The panel shall decide on the Application for Re-establishment of rights by way of order. The other
parties shall be given an opportunity to be heard beforehand.
7. There shall be no right to appeal from an order rejecting an Application for Re-establishment of rights
or from an order granting Re-establishment of rights.
Related Cases
- UPC_CFI_292/2023, ORD_52059/2024 – SES vs Hanshow
- UPC_CFI_770/2024 – Pirelli v Sichuan
- UPC_CFI_770/2024_Pirelli_Reinstatement – Pirelli v Sichuan
- UCP_CoA_618/2024 – Hanshow v Vusion
- UPC_CoA_37/2026 – Align v Angelalign
- UPC CoA 177/2024 – PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v AWM Srl and SCHNELL S.p.A.
- UPC CFI no. 178/2024, no. 432/2024 – PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a.
- UPC CFI 499/2024 – Amycel LLC v - PL