CoA, November 5, 2026, decision on cost, UPC_CoA_49/2026

For the unsuccessful party to be able to comment on both the necessity and the proportionality of the costs for representation, the applicant for a cost decision should provide a sufficiently substantiated specification of the costs in view of the circumstances of the case, which would generally include breakdowns corresponding to each service provided in relation to the case, the date on which such service was provided, and the number of hours and rate billed for that specific service.

Generic descriptions such as “supply of legal services” are insufficient. Invoices lacking specific performance dates, individual task narratives, expended hours, and hourly billing rates do not meet the requisite evidentiary standard under Rule 151(d) and Rule 156 RoP.

The scale of recoverable cost ceilings adopted by the Administrative Committee serves solely as an absolute upper limit, not as a lump-sum grant or statutory benchmark entitlement.

Pursuant to Rule 152.1 RoP, representation costs must always be proven reasonable and proportionate to be recoverable, even where the actual expenses incurred surpass the applicable ceiling.

If the applicant does not commence main proceedings under Rule 213 RoP, the successful defendant may either lodge a cost application within one month of notification or await a merits decision.

Neither a pending appeal regarding substantive preliminary measures nor the initial omission of an explicit cost ruling renders the cost application inadmissible.