Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, UPC_CoA_89/2026, 13 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 30 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

This entry corresponds to appeal UPC_CoA_89/2026, decided by the order of 13 October 2026 of the standing judge of the Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal against the Mannheim Local Division’s order of 22 May 2026, which had rejected a cost application as out of time and refused re-establishment of rights, is dismissed. The headnote holds that leave to appeal cannot be granted against a decision on an application for re-establishment of rights, Rule 320.7 excluding any appeal.

Facts and procedure

Rematec had lodged its cost application with the Court of Appeal on 17 March 2026 and then asked for it to be forwarded to the Local Division keeping that date. The Court of Appeal dismissed that application by order of 30 March 2026, and the panel review sought under Rule 333 was dismissed on 3 July 2026. The application was lodged with the Local Division on 18 March 2026, that is after the time limit had expired on 17 March 2026, and on 17 April 2026 Rematec applied for re-establishment of rights, alternatively for an extension under Rule 9.3(a). The Local Division rejected the application as out of time, held the retroactive extension inadmissible and the re-establishment unfounded, noting that since 2024 the monitoring of time limits had been left entirely to legal assistants, without supervision by the representatives, not even by spot checks.

The applicable law

The order applies Rules 157, 221 and 221.3 on leave to appeal in cost matters, Rule 320.7 excluding any appeal against a decision on re-establishment of rights, Rule 220.3 on discretionary review, and Rules 151 and 156.2.

Question

May leave to appeal be granted against an order rejecting both a cost application and an application for re-establishment of rights?

Decision

No. In so far as it concerns the rejection of the application for re-establishment of rights, the application for leave is inadmissible, Rule 320.7 excluding any appeal against an order granting or refusing re-establishment. Reinterpretation as an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 is not available and would in any event meet the same exclusion. For the rest, no valid ground for leave is put forward: ensuring the consistency of case law is not a sufficient reason, and a mere divergence of legal opinion does not establish the serious error required. Finally, the respondent’s request that Rematec bear the costs of the leave proceedings is dismissed, since in principle no costs are awarded in cost proceedings apart from the court fee, including where the application is inadmissible.

Key points for practice

• A decision on an application for re-establishment of rights is not open to appeal, whether it grants or refuses it, and leave to appeal cannot reopen that debate.
• Filing with the wrong court does not preserve the date: forwarding has no retroactive effect, which here consumed the time limit.
• Leaving the monitoring of time limits to assistants alone, without supervision even by spot checks, does not meet the required due care.
• In cost proceedings no costs are in principle awarded apart from the court fee, even where the application is set aside.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3(a), 151, 156.2, 157, 220.3, 221, 221.3 and 320.7

Related decisions

• Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 13 October 2026), same order, entry for the parallel appeal.
• Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 3 July 2026), panel review dismissed.

Only the official text is authentic.