Eight Spanish timeshare court awards, including £32,219 against CLC Paradise Trading

Swimming pool with sun loungers and parasols beside palm trees, overlooking the sea from a shaded terrace at a resort complex

We are pleased to confirm this week’s Spanish court successes. M1 Legal secured EIGHT positive awards with a combined value of £145,343. Our highest award this week was against CLC Paradise Trading, totalling £32,219.

Below is a breakdown of the substantive results:

1st Court of Instance (First Instance Courts):

  • CLC Paradise Trading x 2 – In Arona, the judge declared both contracts null under the requirements of law 04/2012, due to a lack of information regarding the accommodation and contract duration. Amounts awarded£32,219 and £25,713.
  • Tabobo Inversions & Regency Vacations – In Arona, Court No. 1, the judge declared the contract null under law 42/1998 due to insufficient information about the accommodation. Amount awarded£15,211.
  • Marriott – In Marbella, Court No. 5, the judge declared the contract null under law 42/1998, citing a lack of information regarding the accommodation and contract duration. Amount awarded£18,306.

There were also two further Marriott cases and another against Anfi, all with positive outcomes against the timeshare developers.

Appeals:

  • Diamond Resorts – In Málaga Court of Appeal No. 5, the court upheld the first-instance judgment declaring the contracts null due to a lack of information (accommodation and contract duration). Amount awarded£14,799.
  • Fuerteventura Life (Grand Holidays) – In Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Court of Appeal No. 1, the court upheld the first-instance judgment declaring the contract null due to a lack of information (accommodation and contract period). Amount awarded£10,249.

We can also confirm a positive appeal result against Tasolan.

Jurisdiction:

Two cases valued at £33,950

This week’s positive jurisdiction outcomes were against Diamond Resorts and CLC Sucursal. In the Diamond Resorts matter, the court rejected Diamond’s request to stop the provisional enforcement we have already started. The CLC matter related to an appeal for reversal, which was declined by the judge.

Both cases will now move to the next step.

Chat Now