CoA, July 10, 2026, request for a discretionary review, UPC_CoA_95/2026

The Court of Appeal confirmed the standard established in earlier decisions: discretionary review is available only where the contested order is manifestly erroneous or raises a fundamental legal question with broader implications for the uniform interpretation of the RoP. Questions tied exclusively to the specific facts of the case do not meet this threshold.

The claimant agreed to withdraw its final damages claim and to determine the final amount separately under R. 125 RoP. However, the Procedural Order explicitly preserved the possibility of a provisional damages request, and the defendants had acknowledged this in their own pleadings, such that no broader waiver of all financial relief occurred.

The Procedural Order expressly required the claimant to formally withdraw its final damages claim in its next pleading (the reply) making it reasonable to simultaneously introduce the provisional claim. The defendants already knew the underlying factual basis and had multiple subsequent opportunities to respond, including in their Rejoinder and, following leave under R. 36 RoP, in further submissions.

No separate formal application under R. 263 RoP was required, as the Procedural Order itself had already authorised the introduction of the provisional damages claim.