Perhaps it’s important to identify here that there are so many cases that have been subjected to all manner of piecemeal challenges by the Banks, that at a times it’s difficult to assess which successes are similar to your own specific circumstance.
Some have won first instance rulings and then been subjected to Bank appeals which have subsequently been won, thus creating case law for others to benefit from.
But it doesn’t always end there I’m afraid as some, having already achieved success at appeal level, have been further subjected to SC cassation appeals by the Banks, which if deemed applicable for admittance can take years before they are resolved.
Some, having been subjected to SC appeals have found that the Bank withdraw their appeal after a year( before the appeal has had chance to be assessed for admittance), in which case the previous provincial appeal ruling stands as final ruling.
But these cases do not appear to achieve SC doctrine for others to benefit from as definitive rulings going forward. In fact it takes two successful SC rulings on the same specific legal aspect being challenged, before doctrine is achieved.
Unfortunately there have been some judges who have not accepted majority case law ( at appeal level) which then creates a problem as the Banks then use these cases to suggest continuing elements of doubt going forward.
Only when SC doctrine is achieved can it be deemed that elements of doubt have been fully clarified, again for any specific legal circumstance!
What appears to be happening is that the Banks will endeavour to delay final deliberations at SC level at every opportunity, and use every manipulative ploy in their arsenal to achieve this.
I would ask is there now an increase in the Banks submitting SC Cassation appeals and then withdrawing them at the last minute to frustrate the process, and is this in effect an obstructive attempt to further delay justice thus further impacting timely legitimate return of monies? Is this of sufficient significance now for this behaviour by the Banks to be considered to be acting in bad faith in the eyes of the law?
Some may argue that any enhancement on the interest in the interim periods could be deemed far too little by way of compensation by comparison to the immense stress and financial vulnerabilities that ensue during these extraordinary delays to legitimate return of claimants’ monies. Especially for those instances where the judge does not award costs, for instance in the case of partial wins, where various legitimate options are put forward due to there being no supportive SC doctrine or majority case law being in existence at original point of litigation and the judge considers there are still outstanding elements of doubt. Catch 22 scenario?
What’s more, the proliferation of Bank appeals has become so great as to significantly impact the courts and judiciary, stretching them to breaking point....such that even when claimants gain their final rulings it can still take another year before they receive their associated costs and interest.
The main point being that it would be helpful to know what were the circumstances that led to the win and were these successes achieved after SC ruling or after withdrawal of SC appeals by the Banks, or were they not subjected to this form of ongoing piecemeal challenge by the Bank?
This message was last edited by ads on 27/10/2019.
This message was last edited by ads on 27/10/2019.