UPC CoA 618/2024

The Court of Appeal ruled on a late application for a costs determination (R. 151 RoP) filed by the Hanshow entities (appellants/applicants at first instance in a costs procedure) arising from failed provisional measures proceedings against SES-imagotag SA. The CoA held that the one-month deadline under R. 151.1 RoP begins from service of the provisional measures order (not the merits decision) when no merits proceedings are initiated, and that a missed deadline can only be remedied by re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP). A party that succeeds in costs proceedings must still bear its own costs attributable to those proceedings (except the court fee).

Court of Appeal rejected Hanshow's appeal against a cost decision. The Court held that an application for a cost decision under R.151 RoP must be lodged within one month of service of the decision. This time period cannot be extended; failure can only be remedied through re-establishment of rights under R.320 RoP. Hanshow's late application for a cost decision was therefore time-barred.

The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues regarding court fees for an appeal concerning a cost-fixing application, including a request for default judgment and a request for leave to appeal a cost decision under Rule 221 RoP. The order concerned the admissibility of a cost-fixing appeal following earlier proceedings in which the Munich Local Division had denied VusionGroup's preliminary injunction request and ordered costs.