10 Jan 2024 2:41 PM:
Thank you Maria for that clarification.
Is it correct to surmise that there is every incentive for the Bank to delay any payment into the court ( and not abide by a "voluntary payment " at point of preliminary execution) following their first instance loss, as this provides them an opportunity to continue to accrue interest on claimants deposits that they are withholding in the interim period, even though the first instance ruling went against them?
Is it correct to surmise that the "voluntary" nature of return of funds by the Bank to the court (within the provisional execution procedure) is allowed only when the Bank have submitted an appeal ? Does this voluntary aspect therefore incentivise the Bank to swiftly appeal the first instance ruling at every opportunity so long as elements of doubt exist ( I.e. no SC doctrine yet exists)?
Would a mandatory requirement to return monies by the Bank to the court after the first instance supportive ruling in recognition of the provisional enforcement order in favour of the claimant, have acted as effective disincentive to proliferate Bank appeals? Is this where the Banks have been afforded an unfair advantage over the claimant given the current system of voluntary payments into the court? Do you envisage any change or review to this voluntary aspect given the subsequent impacts that have overloaded and thereby compromised the justice system?
Is it correct to surmise that so long as elements of doubt exist that it becomes essential to review all aspects that can compromise the achievement of SC doctrine which assist judges in their deliberations?
Given the current system, have the Banks been incentivised to proliferate appeals and withdraw at the last minute any SC appeals on their part, (both of which led to the overloading of the justice system), and in so doing significantly delayed the ability for claimants law firms to eliminate those areas of doubt and gain essential SC doctrine?
But also hasn't the "voluntary" nature of provisional enforcement, where Banks have the choice to deposit monies into the court, undermined the ability for claimants to gain early access to their deposited monies?
It needs re-emphasising that the current system of voluntary payment into the court by the Bank, appears to allow Banks the ability to chose NOT to pay those monies into court according to the first instance ruling ( making a mockery of this ruling) and furthermore they continue to gain interest on claimants monies throughout any continuing appeal procedures they instigate until all elements of doubt (SC Doctrine) have been established. BUT THEIR ACTIONS ARE IRONICALLY DELAYING SUCH ELEMENTS OF DOUBT TO BE FINALLY RESOLVED.
Is it therefore essential that judges remain aware (at their final deliberations) of these " purposeful ploys" on the part of the Banks that have created an unequal playing field with regard to interest?
Can law firms bring this to the judges attention? Is this in effect a necessary requirement to demonstrate how the system for Banks' " voluntary" payments to the court at point of provisional enforcement, where the Banks chose to not deposit monies into the court, has in effect unfairly significantly compromised innocent claimants ability to acces their monies and retain the right to a fair assessment of interest throughout the remaining stressful and costly judicial appeal procedures instigated by the Banks?
Is there any facility in the current system to request this review by the judge at final deliberation of interest?
Have these purposeful actions on the part of the Bank also compromised the award of costs in favour of the claimants?
This message was last edited by ads on 1/10/2024.
This message was last edited by ads on 1/11/2024.
Thread:
Question for Maria. How long can Spanish courts hold claimants monies and what are the rules governing interim interest?
--------------------------------------