Supreme Court question

Hi

So we've just been informed that our case is now going to the Supreme Court. We weren't suprised because we haven't been awarded costs; our theory being that anyone who hasn't been awarded costs will be taken all the way.  They've got the money to fight the case, we haven't, the solicitor wins either way.  As it stands we're likely to only come out of this whole farce with around half of what we put in at best.  Our fees from Costa-packet solicitors are far higher than they originally stated and without telling us beforehand will be taking a percentage of the interest on top of their fees.  Lucky them!

Is there anyone out there who HAS been awarded costs and yet still had their case taken to the Supreme Court?

Thanks.

Some cases in which legal costs have been awarded were taken to the Supreme Court, but then abandoned the appeal before it was formalized.

Have cases submitted to SC by Ley 57/68 claimants been abandoned because they were prohibited submission to the Supreme Court due to financial constraints on submission criteria, Lucas Asociados, thereby denying contra legem rulings being reviewed or the ability to gain further clarification at this legal level?

Have cases also been abandoned by the Banks in full knowledge that at this late stage this would set legal precedence to make them fully accountable, having achieved their objective to delay and obstruct?.

All the more reason for MORAL AUTHORITY to be demonstrated by the judiciary at appeal level to make Banks FULLY accountable by awarding costs in the lengthy interim periods until such time as this is clarified by the Supreme Court. Doesn't this late abandonment by the Banks  demonstrate their hidden agendas to obstruct in the hope that this will act as disincentive to rightful claimants?

What they are doing is morally indefensible especially when you consider claimants are defending their INALIENABLE rights.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to similarly play the legal "game" and  use this new law in their attempt to deny Ley 57/68 claimants (since no case law will yet have been established against such non sensical legal arguments). They are capable of anything and are obviously doing all in their power to avoid and/or deny their legal responsibilities.

This message was last edited by ads on 18/11/2015.

Hi, ads,

In fact, the appeal before SC was admited, then BBVA had to formalise their appeal, and in that step is when they abandoned, failing to submit the relevant writing. They were not prohibited to submit, and they could have gone forward.

We ignore at all the reason why BBVA abandoned some appeals submitted to the SC. I guess it has something to see in saving legal costs once the ruling has been executed.

We don't thnk they really wanted to obstruct. On the contrary, we giess they really had faith in their previous appeal before the SC to be resolved in their favour, and wanted to "keep alive" for free as many cases as possible just in case they won SC appeal. And when I say "for free" I mean that, once they had to formalise appeal before SC and incur in higher expenses iwthout being sure of the result of the previous one, and having paid to the buyers on provisional execution, they decided to "minimize the damage" (I hope you understand what I mean) and save legal costs from their part and from the part of the buyers.

In summary, I believe they have delayed thinking in the best defense of the ones they considered their rights, but not tried really a bad faith obstruction.
The obbligation of a lawyer is doing his/her best in fighting for the rights of his/her client. We do this with the rights of our clients and the bank's lawyers will do the same for their clients. And, at the time we were fighting for the inalienable rights of the buyers, BBVA lawyers were fighting for what they considered were their rights.

It's fair that each part makes as much as possible in Law to defend what they consider their rights. And you must remember that, at least in our case, they had paid the deposits back as consequence of the provisional execution. 

Well, at the end we won, they lost. Courts are intended for that: stating who is right. And the SC has stated the banks liable.

We miss in our system any kind of addtitional punishment (as the "punitive damages" of the saxon legal systems), but actually there's nothing further than the obbligation to respond of all interests of the deposits since they were paid and for legal costs.

Anyway, I'm sure banks are still not happy and will try to avoid paying any time they can.

Thank you Lucas Asociados.

I do appreciate your clarification and sincerely comprehend your logic, but how can Banks keep ignoring a growing number of rulings recognising  and clarifying Ley 57/68, and continue with their appeals trying to challenge the same points of law over and over again, points of law that have taken years to be clarified, without this being perceived as obstructive?  Hence presumably your call for adhesion to an existing ruling (and my call for moral authority!)?

Also please bear in mind that costs do not appear to be being awarded in an increasing number of cases until such time as this also achieves SC clarification. It has become a viscious circle of endless appeals without additional punishment by imposition of costs, that impacts not only innocent claimants compromised by banking negligence etc but also as you have rightly identified,"jams" the court system in the process.

Many thanks again.