ALL AIFOS´BANK GUARANTEES NOW AVAILABLE

Hi all,i know of a case where the purchaser  appeared on the creditors list but he was still crossed examined in court.The judge ruled his testimony about paying money to the developer was not credible and dismissed the case.

Surely the fact that the person was on the creditors list was strong enough proof for the judge to award the case to him

Would you know if they failed to provide evidences of payment Ciaron, as I noticed Maria observed " Till this was clear in Courts, it was sensible to also bring to judges evidence of payments."?

Perhaps best to gain that evidence anyway to minimise the risk of any judicial dismissal ?

Before I make any points (below), kindly recognise I am not a legal expert or have any formal training in any other than UK housing law!  

I have wondered and mentioned before though, when a developer goes to administration (insolvency), the banks are placed in the position of preferred creditors.   If there is law (and developed case-law) under 57/1968, does this not allow (at least part of) the consumers money in the banking system to be treated in the same way in future?   There must be some consideration of this in the way the money is 'trapped' in the system?  

In Ciaron's case, to be recognised as a creditor, is the money Ciaron is claiming also included in the banks own claim of the developer I wonder (in other words is any of this money listed twice!).   Once by the bank as the account of the developer and again by the deposit of the individual?  

For the money to be recognised by the insolvency, I am assuming there is sufficient proof given to that procedure for the money to be paid in a recognised and accountable way?   Surely Ciarons lawyer can look into this to find that proof, and to be honest I would expect Ciaron to have the receipts for this being paid too.  

Again I expect this to have been discussed and proven at pre-trial stages and not left until the final trial, with things taking so long it is immensely important to ensure all documents and angles are covered at that stage, it can cost years and years afterwards.   I think the lawyer has some direct culpability in these matters if the paperwork is missing (without discussion with the client as a chance case). 

Insolvency proceedings and proof of money paid into a developer´s account: There is still not express doctrine of the Supreme Court on this. It might come in the future. Till then, general principles of Civil Law and Bankruptcy Law,  together with minor Case Law of Appeal Courts such as Alicante, Burgos and Murcia are by now useful to defend that registration of buyer in the creditor´s meeting of the developer is a powerful way to prove payment. This mean of evidence can, of course, and should be complemented with any other mean.

Questionnaire of the party in a civil procedure has same level of value as any other mean of evidence. Appeal procedures are useful to challenge the consideration that a First Instance judge has given to the different proofs being brought to the proceeding.

In regards to the strength of Bankruptcy Law for the protection of Offf plan buyers/ payers,  the fact that a special Law strongly protects buyers in the high level that law 57/68 does, makes consideration of them by Insolvency Law unnecessary.

Lawyers and liabilities at proving: of course it is lawyer´s liability to use all due diligence to prove all the  relevant facts affecting the full defense of the client.