Ley 57/68

No, the Judge cannot limit/deny the Appeal rights that every litigant has.

To your knowledge Maria, since this current SC doctrine has been clarified, has a judge ever used this legal argument against the Bank  I.e.reckless litigation and awarded costs when a claimant has presented all reqd evidence to gain a successful ruling and the bank STILL continue to appeal?

Will judges now recognise this as an abuse by the Bank and their lack of respect for SC doctrine?

I am sure they will

Thank you Maria for all your educative posts.

However, only by effective and consistent monitoring and reporting mechanisms by good legal firms to the CGJP (and EU commission where rule of law is compromised) will we ever know if this means of making the Banks truly accountable via assessing "reckless litigation" subsequently proves an effective means of controlling and disincentivising the Banks from their current ploys to disrespect SC doctrine.

Please keep us posted.

Kindest regards.

Dear Maria,

I noticed on your legal tip the following "On 21 December 2015 the Supreme Court has fixed doctrine regarding the responsibility of the bank that receives the quantities delivered by buyers on account of off-plan housing. It reiterates this doctrine in its sentence of 9 March 2016".

I'm wondering if this might somehow apply to the following scenario.

If monies have been proven to have been deposited into two separate developer accounts (without issuance of individual guarantees) and the lawsuit is against the Bank that provided a generic guarantee that links to the developer, and this bank was referenced in the contract but made no mention of a special account into which monies should be placed, is the above SC doctrine relevant?

If not has any SC doctrine been established to cover this eventuality and if so when was this established?

If there is a Bank which provided a Generic Bank Guarantee, once payment into developer´s account is proved. liability of the Guarantoor Bank is clear. There is abundant Case Law ( by both Supreme Court and Appeal Courts) on this.

Recent Supreme Court Decissions you are mentioning ( 21st December, 9th March) refers to liabilities of banks were deposits are made.

Thank you Maria. :)