UPC_CFI_292/2023, ORD_52059/2024 – SES vs Hanshow

Court
Local Division Munich
Date
Outcome
Denied
Sector
Other
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

1. Hanshow is defendant in PI proceedings and wins in first instance and appeal. The decision of the appeal is of 13 May 2024. 2. On 18 June 2024 Hanshow asks the Court of Appeal to give a costs decision. The Court of Appeal refers the request to the JR of the first instance proceedings. 3. Hanshow is too late. R. 151 RoP states that you have to start cost proceedings within one month of service of the decision (so here 13 June – R. 300 RoP). 4. Hanshow asked an extension of three working days based on R. 9 RoP. Assessment by the Court (full panel): 1. R. 320.1 (Re-establishment of rights) is lex specialis of the general provision of R. 9 RoP. 2. Even if one assumes that Hanshow’s request to the Court of Appeal could serve as a request for a re-establishment of rights according to R. 320.1 ROP, then this has been lodged at the wrong instance. Hanshow’s submission of 2 August 2024 lacked a request for re-establishment of rights but would also have been too late (see R. 320.2 RoP). Even if the LD would have considered Hanshow’s request to the Court of Appeal as a request to the LD it could not have been granted, as Hanshow had not paid the court fee (see R. 371.2 RoP). Decision: 1. No extension of term. 2. Dismisses the request for costs. Comment: 1. The decision that R. 320 RoP is a lex specialis of 9 RoP is convincing. 2. Hanshow misses out on € 131.874.80! 3. You have to know the Rules of Procedure and in this case so many things went wrong that the LD could not save Hanshow! 4. Every representative should read this decision!

Key Holdings

  • The Local Division Munich dismissed Hanshow's request for costs, ruling it was filed out of time, beyond the one-month deadline stipulated by R. 151 RoP.
  • The court held that R. 320.1 RoP (re-establishment of rights) is a *lex specialis* to the general provision of R. 9 RoP (extension of time limits).
  • Hanshow's request for re-establishment of rights was deemed improperly lodged (wrong instance, too late, and lacking court fee payment).
  • The decision underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure, particularly regarding time limits and procedural formalities for cost applications.

Tags

  • Costs
  • Reinstatement of Rights
  • Rules of Procedure
  • Time Limits

Related Cases