Question for Maria on interest payments (Ley 57/68)

Dear Maria,

Firstly Happy New Year!

I wonder if you could please clarify the following somewhat complex queries with regard to interest payments (Ley 57/68).

When a case against the Bank has been won at first instance level with award of costs and interest backdated only to date of claim against the Bank, and the Bank does not challenge this ruling within the 20 day period, but the claimant then appeals for additional interest (as per the original lawsuit), do they risk losing the costs and interest originally awarded as per the unopposed first instance ruling as a fallback position, if they subsequently lost the appeal for addtional interest? In other words do the costs associated with the appeal for additional interest remain separate from the costs relating to the unopposed first instance win?

Who pays for costs associated with the appeal, if the appeal for additional interest is won? Is this split between the two parties so each pay their own costs?

Likewise, will the claimant be responsible for costs of both parties relating to the appeal for additional interest if they lose the appeal?

When a final ruling on interest has been achieved, do the Bank have the right to continue querying the costs as per the final ruling? Will costs and interest be clarified by the judge within the appeal ruling?

Many thanks.

This message was last edited by ads on 15/01/2018.

Hi Ads

Answers in bold:

I wonder if you could please clarify the following somewhat complex queries with regard to interest payments (Ley 57/68).

When a case against the Bank has been won at first instance level with award of costs and interest backdated only to date of claim against the Bank, and the Bank does not challenge this ruling within the 20 day period, but the claimant then appeals for additional interest (as per the original lawsuit), do they risk losing the costs and interest originally awarded as per the unopposed first instance ruling as a fallback position,if they subsequently lost the appeal for addtional interest?  NO

In other words do the costs associated with the appeal for additional interest remain separate from the costs relating to the unopposed first instance win?  YES

Who pays for costs if the appeal for additional interest is won? Is this split between the two parties so each pay their own costs? YES.  If an Appeal is won then costs will not be imposed on any party.  Each party will pay its own costs for the Appeal.  If an Appeal is lost then it is likely that Appeal costs would be imposed on the losing party.

Likewise, will the claimant be responsible for costs of both parties relating to the appeal for additional interest if they lose the appeal?  Possibly, yes.  That is up to the Magistrates to decide.

When a final ruling on interest has been achieved, do the Bank have the right to continue querying the costs as per the final ruling?  The Bank can challange the costs calculations, but ultimately it will be the Judge that sets the exact amount of costs that can be recovered.

This message was last edited by Keith110 on 15/01/2018.

Thank you Keith.

Happy New Year to you too!

One final query....where you identify " The Bank can challenge the costs calculations, but ultimately it will be the Judge that sets the exact amount of costs that can be recovered."

Wouldn't this award of costs relating to the appeal be done (clarified) within the judge's appeal ruling and would this in effect be the final position that the Bank have to accept?

Assuming that preliminary enforcement has been done on the principal amount alone (from which the law firm have deducted costs prior to returning monies to the client), does enforcement of all interest and costs then follow according to the appeal ruling AND the original unopposed successful first instance win?

Many thanks again.

I’m trying to learn some of these judgements myself, so to risk testing my knowledge perhaps some of my next comments can be 'tested for accuracy'!

i believe that regardless of the amount of costs sought by the winning party, it has to be a reasonable amount.  That amount can be tested by the judge by referring to the table of charges found in the 'bar rates' (or similar description).  

So in these matters the judge is looking to make sure all is fair?

(from which the law firm have deducted costs prior to returning monies to the client)

Are you saying that any client money won in court is initially paid to a lawyers help themselves account?

Hi,

Is this post in relation to claiming back interest on a mortgage under the floor clause ruling?

regards

Chief

Cash flow perhaps Kavanagh whilst the significant delays ensue? 

But also that's another reason why I was hoping the law firms would consistently follow through to the powers that be to report significant delays in order to gain adequate resources, to the benefit of all. And if this is not enough then for the sake of the Spanish Justice system, then to report to a higher level ( European Commission)? Vera Jourova is the EU Commissioner of Justice.

We're all being compromised by these delays, especially when you consider the impact on gaining SC clarification ( x 2 for SC doctrine to apply). 

And the abusive non compliant Banks with their denial to accept legal responsibility to protect offplan deposited monies from the outset, as required by law, continue to play the system of delays in their attempt to bully and intimidate "innocents" by flooding the justice system, and in that process they are compromising us ALL,.

Now that rule of law appears to be being compromised in this way I was sincerely hoping that good law firms would step up to the mark to at least try to gain adequate resources from the Government via their credible reported evidence, and fight in this respect, to the benefit of all, .....clients , law firms, court administrators, judges alike. 

All the more reason for interest and costs to be fully recoverable from the Banks that are running roughshod over the justice system. They should be made consistently fully accountable to act as adequate disincentive to their abusive practices IN A TIMELY MANNER THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE OF LAW.

This message was last edited by ads on 15/01/2018.

This message was last edited by ads on 15/01/2018.

Dear Keith/Maria,

One final query....where you identify " The Bank can challenge the costs calculations, but ultimately it will be the Judge that sets the exact amount of costs that can be recovered."

Wouldn't this award of costs relating to the appeal be done (clarified) within the judge's appeal ruling and would this in effect be the final position that the Bank have to accept?

Assuming that preliminary enforcement has been done on the principal amount alone (from which the law firm have deducted costs prior to returning monies to the client), does enforcement of all interest and costs then follow according to the appeal ruling AND the original unopposed successful first instance win?

Many thanks.

Wouldn't this award of costs relating to the appeal be done (clarified) within the judge's appeal ruling,  yes it would and would this in effect be the final position that the Bank have to accept? Correct.

Assuming that preliminary enforcement has been done on the principal amount alone (from which the law firm have deducted costs prior to returning monies to the client), does enforcement of all interest and costs then follow according to the appeal ruling AND the original unopposed successful first instance win? Interests and costs will be calculated according to Appeal ruling.

I thought that interest and costs achieved from an unopposed first instance ruling had to be enforced Maria, as the minimum fallback position? In other words this cannot be recinded?

So in the case of applying for additional interest via an appeal, that these additional interests and associated appeal costs would be assessed separately, and would not interfere with awards already established from the original unopposed first instance ruling? Is this correct?

So my question was at what point can you reclaim the award of costs and interest according to the unopposed first instance ruling?

Could this be done whilst awaiting an appeal ruling for additional interest or does it have to wait until the appeal ruling for additional interest is achieved?

In which case, in the event of a successful appeal for additional interests,would the award for additional interest (and associated costs) be combined with the previously successful unopposed first instance ruling in one procedure, or would this require two procedures?

Ads: It is not possible to ask for provisional enforcement of interests and costs if there is a pending Appeal on this matter