Supreme Court

Hi

Just found out (after over 18 months of asking our solicitor and getting nowhere) that our case was accepted by the Supreme Court in Feb 2016.  We've heard that the timescales are around 3 years for them to come up with a decision; has anyone had any experience of this?  Also how likely are they to agree with the previous 2 judges that we should get our money back or do they have a tendancy to overthrow the previous decisions?

Thanks in advance.

Jo

On what grounds are you appealing to the Supreme Court? In other words what exact point of law is being challenged or requires clarification here?

Is this a group of claimants or an individual claim and against which Bank?

We're not us taking it to the Supreme Court, it's SGR who are - BBVA caved in a while ago.  We haven't been told on what grounds they're challenging the decision against them.  We were supposed to be a group of 3 claimants but all the cases have been heard separately and are at different stages and whilst some got costs we didn't.

So it's not your case accepted by the Supreme Court, it's the banks case?

There must be some form of judgement for them to appeal against, so your solicitor must have attended some hearing for you? Do you have details of that to look at.

Your solicitor should keep you informed during the process, it's their duty to do this and to answer your questions in a timely manner.

if the case is at supreme. Court, as ads says their must be some point of law or something that requires clarification?   I wonder how you 'just found out' it's in Supreme Court, it sounds more than a little suspicious to read about.

was it your case that the agent sold the property to you rather than the builder?   How does that fit in?

The original case was against SGR (bank's insurance company) and BBVA (the bank).  The original case was appealed and we won in Sept 2015.  BBVA accepted that judgement but SGR want to take it further.  We've not been given a reason by our solicitors and aren't aware that they've represented us in court.  Essentially after the original appeal there was the 20 day period for anyone to appeal to case to the SC which is what happened and we were informed of this in Nov 2015 by our solicitors and told it would take 6-12 months for the SC to decide whether to accept the case or not then up to another 3 years before the case was heard.  It was only by chance when my husband chased again last week for news that someone different at the solicitors responded to say it had been accepted in Feb 2016.  

From Nov 2015 until now we've had no updates whatsoever from the solicitor other than when we've given them a nudge; they just say that when they've got something to tell us they'll be in touch.  

At the original case our barrister in his summing up said that the case was fundamentally the same as all the other cases (probably why the judge looked so bored!)

All we can assume is that each case has its own specific circumstance that has ultimately required separate legal avenues to follow. Such aspects as whether monies were deposited with the developer Bank or agent etc,  how contracts were worded, etc ( named developer, or agent etc), which financial entities provided guarantees. 

TheBanks during this past decade have been using every opportunity to exploit these differences, although there are some who suggest these points need further clarification to establish essential legal doctrine to prevent inconsistent judicial rulings going forward. 

With this in mind there must be some legal circumstance allowing the Bank or insurer to have the case submitted for further clarification to Supreme Court....which is why I wondered what that circumstance might be.

It really is important to find out what this is before anyone can profer advice or useful observation to be honest, so I sincerely hope you manage to find this out from your law firm representing you.

It's the not knowing that is often the most stressful part of this scenario, and sometimes the non comprehension can lead to wrong conclusions ( or suspicions) or increase understandable worries for that matter.

Ask for the information and explain that you want this so you can comprehend the complexity to your case for you to be able to put this into context.

Good luck and keep us posted.

This message was last edited by ads on 23/10/2017.

Hi All

Good news!

Received our interest in our account today.  Now it's just a wait to see if  the SC agrees to giving us our costs.

Good Luck to those still waiting.

Joyjo

Well done Joyjo. Congratulations.

Chrissie 1

Great Christmas prezzie foryou Joyjo 

I'm confused...is Joyjo the same as joandjez who started this thread?

Joyjo, was your interest backdated to date of deposit and on what grounds were the SC reviewing your case?

We're definitely different people!  Still no updates from our lovely attentive solicitors.

Same here our case was heard in Valencia on May 30th and we had to attend, since then silence!!!!!

Same here. Case won 2016. Nearly 13 years and nothing.

Hi Ads

Yes we are different people lol.

Our interest was back dated from time of deposit.

The reason we are awaiting a hearing at SC is SGR appealled the outcome of the appeal against the costa. We have already paid the Court Agent in Madrid although we don't have a date for the hearing.

Cheers

Joyjo

Hi Joyjo

Can I ask when your case was appealed and what timescale your solicitor gave you please? We were told it would be 3-6 months before the SC decided whether to accept the case and then around 1-3 years for the actual appeal.  So far we're 2 years down the line from when SGR appealed and as yet our solicitor hasn't even confirmed whether the case has been accepted! 

Jo

It's really important to find out exactly what legal point is being challenged by SGR as the Banks and insurance companies are sometimes trying to gain clarification of LEY 57/68. 

But the irony is that even when clarification has been achieved at SC level they still continue to challenge ( since two SC rulings are required on the same exact point of law before it becomes doctrine.) And in response to these ongoing  appeals by the Banks and insurance companies, doctrine is required before consistent judicial rulings can be achieved which leads to full award of costs.

And further irony....it has been the Banks repeated appeals swamping the system of justice during this last decade that in the main has led to major compromising delays to achieving full clarification in the first place.

Talk about a catch 22 scenario isn't in it!!

These financial institutions are sadly disrespecting SC rulings which have taken YEARS to achieve.

It's time the wider perspective was reviewed by the powers that be, as this is now making a mockery of purchasers inalienable rights according to clarified law.

A complete disgrace and IMHO totally alien and disrespectful of a law in place to protect from the outset.

I agree ads.   

Am I right in that the cases being discussed have been won in the regional courts, meaning the deposit and interest are favourable to the plaintiff.   

If this is the case then the costs incurred in bringing the matter to Court would be part of the judgements and awarded back to the defendant.   

Can anyone let us know what grounds there are for appeal of costs only please, I can’t see a case for an appeal there.  Is it because the banks are saying the law isn’t clear enough and they have had to incur costs just to find out what the law should be on costs?

Or might it be that these financial institutions are trying another legal tack, suggesting that at the point of original lawsuit ( many years prior in all too many cases) there was no SC clarification which might place some original lawsuits "out of sync" with newly achieved SC clarification which has taken years to achieve? 

This in effect would be demonstrating complete disrespect for SC rulings that HAVE clarified this law with regard to interest, in the lengthy interim periods, and are in place at point of time of the Banks ongoing legal challenges.

And so it continues ad infinitum in this continuing catch 22 scenario.... The point being long awaited clarification of law is intended to be respected and consistently enforced, not manipulated by these financial institutions in this abusive manner. Otherwise it makes a mockery of a justice system in place to enforce clarified law that is increasingly reaffirming articles in Ley 57/68 that were put in place to rightly protect INALIENABLE RIGHTS from the outset.

These are classic examples of how the financial institutions are consistently refusing to recognise their legal obligations, even when the law has been clarified.

You couldn't write this script if you tried, it's become so farcical and a complete anathema to a justice system struggling to make Banks accountable.

Hi Joandjez

We were told in Feb. this year that the court dismissed the banks appeal against interest and costa. In March we were told that SGR had appealled against the appeal courts decision and was appealling to SC. We don't know how long it will take to hear the case but we have already paid the Court Agent in Madrid. Our Lawyer did say the appeal process could take a year or more . SGR call it a cassation appeal.

This time scale is probably due to all the appeals that are being heard. Can't the SC just make a judgement that all who paid money for properties that were never built should get everything back and no appeals will be upheld.

Joyjo

The longer there is no SC doctrine achieved on interest (i.e. 2 SC rulings achieved on the same point of law to eradicate inconsistent judicial rulings), the more the Banks will exploit the system by swamping the system with appeals, in the hope that non return of costs  and major delays to return of interest will sufficiently deter claimants in the interim.

Costs are only awarded when all claims within the lawsuit are wholly successful, plus generally I think each party pays their own costs at appeal level ( unless the judge deems there to be extraordinary circumstances).

This without doubt is significantly compromising claimants and appears to act as unfair disincentive for those fighting for Banks to be made fully accountable for their non compliance with a law intended to secure and guarantee return of monies ( with interest) in the event of breach.

Isn't it time that the SC recognised the repeat of behaviour with regard to Bank appeals relating now to Interest, that have already occurred in their previous challenges to articles within Ley 57/68 which have taken years to clarify?

This needs to be recognised and resolved by the SC as soon as possible before the court and judicial system become even further compromised and overloaded with appeals....

Perhaps lawyers can explain what, if anything is being done to resolve this in these all too lengthy interim periods? 

To witness a repeat of circumstance of powerful financial institutions continuing to play the system of delays in this manner, without consistent effective deterrents in place in the form of interest backdated to date of deposit with full return of costs, sadly does little to restore confidence that full accountability can be achieved against the Banks who remain in denial and defiant against their legal obligations according to clarified law.

It shouldn't have to be like this...