UPC-CoA-42/2026 – Fives v REEL
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Case management Facts 1. This case concerns an appeal of a decision by the LD Hamburg dated 11 February 2026. 2. A revocation case is pending before the CD Munich. 3. REEL basically asked for a stay pending the revocation proceedings. 4. REEL asked to disregard pleadings and evidence (specified by REEL) which Fives had not submitted in first instance. The JR The Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) asked applicant Fives to comment on the requests for a stay and for disregarding pleadings and evidence. Comment The Statement of Response in which REEL made these requests is in principle the last pleading. Here the JR gives Fives the possibility to respond, which would enable the panel to decide on the requests before the oral hearing. This is certainly practical if the request for a stay is granted! In that case, the parties and the Court do not have to prepare for the oral hearing and, even if the stay is not granted, the parties know what pleadings and evidence are part of the proceedings.
Key Holdings
- The Judge-Rapporteur may invite the applicant to comment on procedural requests raised in the Statement of Response, including requests for a stay and for disregarding pleadings and evidence.
- Permitting a response to requests made in the final regular pleading allows the panel to rule on them ahead of the oral hearing.
- Resolving stay requests and evidentiary objections before the oral hearing promotes case management efficiency and clarifies the record for hearing preparation.
Tags
- Case management