Re Ley 57/68
It would be really helpful if Maria or Keith might be able to clarify on the point of law with regard to backdated interest.
Has there already been a SC ruling re payment of interest to be awarded from date of deposit as opposed to date of claim, and are there currently other outstanding cases awaiting SC ruling ( or admission to SC) in existence on the same point of law, so as to gain jurisprudence ( I.e. 2 SC rulings) upon which all judges must adhere?
What happens in the interim period if there are several outstanding cases chasing a second SC ruling in this regard? Should the judge take this into account when making their rulings?
If there is a single SC ruling in existence then why do the judiciary not adhere ( i.e. default in their rulings) to award interest backdated to date of deposit from which the Bank could, if they so chose, ultimately appeal to the SC, rather than ignore the SC ruling in their judgement by awarding interest from date of claim?
This appears an extraordinary situation which plays into the hands of Banks wishing to be obstructive by maximising delays and subjecting clients to yet further expense to gain justice, and in that process compromises not only clients but also the already overstretched court and judicial system.
Should the judge not act in good faith in the interim and abide by the SC ruling? Is this being brought to the attention of the judiciary by pleading for good faith in the interim?
Re AVALS. ( Guarantees?)
Also could you please advise if Banks are now not depositing monies with the court but issuing Avals as an alternative? Does this compromise preliminary enforcements affecting law firms and clients alike, and is this considered illegal to compromise preliminary enforcements for return of principal MONIES in this manner? What would happen if the bank became insolvent?
For instance what happens in the case of a fully upheld first instance ruling that
1) Was awarded interest to date of claim plus costs. ( i.e.lawsuit fully upheld but the judge chose to award interest backdated to date of claim).
2) The Bank did not appeal.
3) The client appeals for additional interest backdated to date of deposit.
4) The legal firm applies for a preliminary enforcement of the unopposed successful first instance ruling to gain access to principal monies.
5) The Bank provides an AVAL to the court rather than principal monies.
Does this in effect prevent return of principal monies until such time as the appeal for additional interest is firm and final ( many years hence), even though the return of principal monies is not in question?
Does this also compromise the legal firm in the interim period, from gaining access to their fees ( from the principal monies)?
Should this be recognised by the judiciary and courts as a manipulative ploy by the banks to impede timely return of principal monies, inhibit law firms from timely receipt of fees, and in that process act as disincentive for clients to appeal?
Is this indicative of certain judges demonstrating undue favour to Banks?
This message was last edited by ads on 26/01/2017.