Tag Archives: manilva costa

May 27th, 2012

The Court of Appeal in Seville has upheld a Court of First Instance ruling allowing enforcement of a ruling by a UK Court, obtained by claimants who successfully sued Manilva Costa (MC), and Ocean View Properties (OVP), at the Bristol County Court.

MC´s lawyers opposed the enforcement of the Bristol County Court ruling, pursuant to COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, on the following grounds:

  • That the UK had no jurisdiction as the case versed on a dispute relating to Spanish property and
  • That property developer MC had not been properly served, as a co-defendant alongside now defunct Ocean View Properties.

The claimants petition was upheld by 3 Seville Magistrates who found that, since OVP was domiciled in the UK, a co-defendant (MC) could also be sued in this jurisdiction.

With regards to the inappropriate service of process, the Magistrates argued that because His Honour Judge Denyer QC had certified that the notifications were done observing the formalities of English laws, they could not argue against this.

The enforcement of the UK ruling is now well under way, through the Seville Courts. Equity on the embargoed properties still remain the biggest concern, though.

May 4th, 2011

Manilva Costa S.A. (MC) has seen it’s appeal rejected by the Malaga Appeal Court on similar grounds to those of the Court of First Instance. The ruling judges maintaned the following:

  1. That Ocean View Properties’  (OVP) presence was not required as a defendant, since they were acting agents for MC and therefore, their intervention in the judicial action was irrelevant for which the exception of “joint defendant litigation” was dismissed.
  2. That the fact these contracts were not signed by MC was equally irrelevant, particularly where they had ratified them, as was proven it Court. It then goes on to insist that any discrepancies between OVP and MC in respect of the contracts were unopposable to the claimant by virtue of it being a relationship alien to him.

The biggest mistake MC made, according to the appeal judges, was to have summoned the buyers by using a registered letter with ackowlegdement of content (“burofax”), starting off with a “Dear Buyer…”, as quotes the ruling. 

And now, the big question any succesful claimant has in mind: where do we go from here? That is an interesting one considering that MC has most, if not all, properties mortgaged and little equity can be found in them. Its now time to turn to private investigators…