We are pleased to share our latest Spanish timeshare court victories from the past two weeks. M1 Legal secured FOURTEEN positive awards with a combined value of £298,672. The highest award in these results was confirmed against Anfi Sales & Resorts, valued at £95,400.
Below is a breakdown of the substantive outcomes:
1st Court of Instance
- Marriott x 2 – At Marbella Courts No. 4 and No. 6, the judge declared the timeshare contracts null for failing to state the contract duration (Law 04/2012). Amounts awarded: £10,584 and £52,480.
- CLC Sucursal – At Arona Court No. 1, the judge declared the contract null for failing to state the contract duration (Law 04/2012). Amount awarded: £14,812.
We also received confirmation of another positive judgment against Blaue Investitionen Fuerteventura and CLC Continental Resorts.
Appeals
- Anfi x 4 – At the Court of Appeal in Las Palmas, the First Instance judgments were upheld, with the contracts declared null due to insufficient accommodation information. Two cases referenced Law 42/1998 and two referenced Law 04/2012. Amounts awarded: £21,600, £95,400, £14,669 and £15,688.
- CLC Sucursal – At the Court of Appeal in Malaga, it was confirmed that the First Instance decision in relation to the loan was overturned; however, the timeshare contract remains declared null and void due to insufficient accommodation information (Law 04/2012). Amount awarded: £15,670.
- CLC Paradise – The Court of Appeal in Tenerife fully confirmed the First Instance judgment, declaring the contract null due to insufficient accommodation information (Law 04/2012). Amount awarded: £10,292.
- CLC Sucursal – At the Court of Appeal in Malaga, the First Instance judgment was fully confirmed, with the contract declared null and void due to insufficient accommodation information (Law 04/2012). Amount awarded: £12,982.
We also received confirmation of a further three positive judgments against CLC Paradise, CLC Continental Resorts and Anfi.
Jurisdiction
Two cases valued at £26,924
Our positive jurisdiction outcomes were both against Diamond Resorts. In each case, the judge rejected the jurisdiction argument raised by the defendant, and both matters will now proceed to the next step.
