Last week, we secured a further court win against Restotel SA in Spain, following an appeal heard by the Court of Appeal in Alicante. The appeal court upheld the first-instance judgment in our clients’ favour and confirmed that the Spanish timeshare contract was declared null because it did not meet the requirements of Law 42/1998. As a result, our clients were awarded £9,664.
These outcomes reinforce an important point for many owners: where a timeshare agreement fails to comply with the information and consumer protection standards set out in Law 42/1998, the court can declare the contract void. In practical terms, a ruling on contract nullity confirms that the agreement does not meet the legal requirements applied by the Spanish courts, including at appeal level in Alicante.
We also achieved another victory against CLC, in this case under its contractual name CLC Sucursal. The court awarded £19,754 to our clients after finding the fractional contract should be declared null due to missing key information about the accommodation and the length of the agreement. The judgment referred to the “nullity of the main contract and its ancillary contracts”; while the word “loan” was not used, the wording clearly related to it.
In plain terms, the decision confirms that where essential contractual details are absent, the court may treat the wider arrangement as falling with the main agreement. That can include related documents connected to the original purchase, depending on how the contracts are structured and referenced. It also highlights why the accommodation description and the contract term can be pivotal issues when a fractional or timeshare agreement is assessed by the court.
In addition, we obtained four further favourable judgments against Club La Costa. Together with the Alicante appeal ruling and the CLC Sucursal decision, these results underline a continuing trend of successful outcomes in Spanish timeshare contract nullity cases where agreements do not meet the required legal standards.
