UPC Court of Appeal: Accuracy of Ex Parte Applications

In its March 2026 order in Ecovacs v Roborock, the Court of Appeal upheld the revocation of an ex parte inspection order on the basis that Ecovacs had not complied with Rule 192.3 RoP, which imposes a duty to disclose “any material fact known to it which might influence the Court in deciding whether to make an order without hearing the defendant.”

The Court stressed that this rule reflects a “heightened requirement” in ex parte proceedings, where the court must rely solely on the applicant’s submissions. It held that omissions and distorted accounts of material facts cannot be remedied after the order has been granted. Such shortcomings cannot be compensated or circumvented by later submissions in response to a Request for review, and facts introduced later by the applicant shall be disregarded.

Applying those principles, the Court found that Ecovacs’ presentation in the application was incompatible, or at least incomplete compared with its own factual account in the main proceedings. The omissions concerned facts of central importance for the Local Division’s assessment on whether to allow the request at all. Because the justification was deficient at the time of filing, the possibility that other grounds might have existed cannot retroactively justify the Application.

The outcome confirms a strict procedural rule: an ex parte application must contain full, correct and complete disclosure of all material facts at the moment it is made. If it does not, the order must be revoked. Later attempts to supply additional reasons or to identify further supporting grounds are not taken into account.