Judge Pollard Ruling Foils Another Sale

District Judge Pollard Court Order Questioned By Spanish Court

23 August 2009

The Torrox Court in Andalucia has questioned the court order of an English judge because it is impossible to implement in Spain.  Spanish lawyer, Snr. Enrique Delgado Scharzmann explained that the Spanish judge simply cannot uphold the English court order because it is written in such vaque terms as to not have any relevance or legal standing in the Spanish court.

De Cotta Law or De Cotta McKenna & Santafé, representing Valerie C. Russell, the petitioner, applied to the Hastings County Court for the wording of the court order to be corrected without a hearing. The respondent in the case, Mr. Kirwan, also applied to have the court order corrected by Hastings County Court in order to sell his property and honour the court order. So far the application has been unsuccessful. So why has the correction not been done?

District Judge Pollard as he is now, is no longer dealing with the case; that task has fallen to Judge Guinan. After reading the respondent’s application she requested a letter be sent to Jon Sutton, partner of De Cotta Law.  This may seem rather strange when both parties want the same thing but that is the fact of the matter.

However, the solicitor has shown reluctance or at the very least sluggishness in replying. He has failed to answer the letter sent out by Hastings Couty Court enquiring into their agreement of something they have petitioned the court to do. This may be surprising to the casual reader of this blog but regulars know better.

The lack of response has caused another sale (the fifth) to be lost by the respondent and seems typical of the cat and mouse games De Cotta Law appear to be enjoying. By using a highly suspicious mistranslated version of the court order, making their third appeal against a Spanish court ruling (this time in England) and therefore moving the playing field back to England these carefully engineered moves by the Goliath of expatriot law firms in Spain seem intent on squashing poor David.

A hearing in Hastings County Court has been set for the 16th September 2009. Once again Mr. Kirwan, as things stand at present will have no legal represtation in England. Is there a Law Firm in England prepared to take this on?

District Judge Pollard made an impossible court order and must surely bear the responsibility of his actions. Time will tell whether restitution will be made to the respondent for the damage, stress and finacial loss suffered by this man’s action.

Subscribe in a reader

Injustice in Europe with Blogcatalog

DeCotta, McKenna & Santafé Turn to an English Court

DeCotta, McKenna & Santafé Turn to an English Court

On 21st January 2009 the Court of Torrox in Spain annulled an application by DeCotta McKenna & Santafé to enforce an English Court Order. A “public auction” of half a property due to the false, incorrect and therefore, illegal translation of an English Court Order by an Official Sworn Translator was halted just 2 hours before a man was to loose his home. De Cotta Law’s subsequent appeal was also denied again on the 16th March 2009.

DeCotta McKenna & Santafé subsequently appealed to the High Court in Malaga and the result of that has yet to be heard.

Dissatisfied with the two rulings of the Court of Torrox,  Jon Sutton, a partner of the De Cotta Law firm based in Mijas, has made an application to the Court in Hastings on behalf of his client Valerie Celia Russell,  for the enforcement of the same Court Order dating back to 11th August 2004.

What is interesting is that through a “mis-translation” which is documented elsewhere on this blog, it was Jon Sutton who effectively stopped the defendant, Edward Kirwan, from meeting his obligations.

Mr. Jonathan Paul Sutton, on behalf of his client,  effectively took control of the sale of the property when he wrote to Mr. Kirwan on the 5th August 2005 stating that:

“We have had the Court Order legalised and translated into Spanish”

However,  Mr.B.R.True (the Official Sworn Translator  appointed by De Cotta, McKenna and Santafé and certified by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs) stamped the translation which Jon Sutton referred to,  on the 11th of August 2005 – fully 6 days after Mr. Sutton’s statement to Mr. Kirwan, the Respondent in the case.

The English Court Order of 11th August 2004 stated:

ii) the respondents solicitors shall have conduct of the sale.

The Spanish translation stated

ii) La representación letrada del demandante administrará la venta.

This is the complete opposite of the original Court Order.

(The word “Respondent” in English is “Demandado” in Spanish, whereas “Claimant” is “Demandante” )

Jonathan Paul Sutton, who is an English solicitor as well as a Spanish Abogado (lawyer) and a Partner in De Cotta, McKenna and Santafé, should definitely have known this translation to be incorrect. What was he thinkng of? He had options.

If he acted on the English version he knew that it was the respondent’s solicitors who should conduct the sale.

If he knew that the Spanish translation would be in his client’s favour he could act on that.

If he thought the respondent was not legally represented, it could be to his clients’ advantage and he could act accordingly.

In fact he acted on the Official Spanish translation which gave power to the claimant’s solicitor (namely his client, Valerie Celia Russell) 6 days before it was official. This begs very serious questions.

How did Jonathan Paul Sutton, Solicitor and Partner in DeCotta McKenna & Santafé, know the contents of a Sworn Translation 6 days before it was stamped by the Official Translator Mr. B. R. True?

Why did he not recognise the “mistake” and why did he act on it?

Yet that is what this De Cotta Law partner did. He deliberately acted against the Respondent and the company (DeCotta McKenna & Santafé) as a whole refused to allow 4 sales, generated by Mr. Kirwan, over a 3 year period, hiding behind this translation “mistake” until it was brought to light by Mr. Kirwan himself, in November 2008.

Mr. Kirwan has only recently (16th March 2009) been able to freely offer his property for sale following the ruling of the Court in Torrox. However there is an added complication to this proceedure.

Deputy District Judge Pollard, when handing down the Court Order, failed to appreciate that the property in Spain, jointly owned by Mr. Kirwan and his ex-wife,  is in 4 parts and he only cited 2 on the order. In order for the respondent to sell any part of the property and honour his commitment, the Court order needs to be amended to reflect the 4 parts.

On this both parties agree.

However in the Respondent’s case the application is sought so that he can sell the property for which he has potential buyers, whereas in the De Cotta Law application, they suggest in a Draft Order that the judge re-word the order as follows:

“In default of the order this Court dated 11th August 2004, the properties known as 1017 and 1018 Barranco Plano and registered in the Land Registry of Torrox, Spain with finca numbers 29102, 29104, 29106 and 29108 be sold by auction by the Spanish Court.”

Is this a backdoor way to achieving something that has been decided and denied to the Claimant in the Courts of Spain?

Are DeCotta Law and their client in contempt of the Court in Spain?

Indeed does the English Court even have jurisdiction or superior power over property of a Spanish Resident and a matter being dealt with in the High Court of Malaga?

Mr. Kirwan could have sold his property in 2005 if De Cotta Law had not acted on the “mis-translation”. The fact that Mr. Kirwan finds buyers at all, indictes that this is not the act of a man who, in the opinion of  De Cotta Law is

“holding the English Court in contempt in ignoring the order of 11th August 2004 and taking advantage of the difficulty of enforcing the order in Spain”

Mr. Kirwan has only had the power to sell the property, through the Court of Torrox,  since the 16th March 2009 and has already produced potential buyers but he is unable to complete any sale due to the incorrect wording originally laid down.

Under the circumstances, why is there any need for a partner of De Cotta Law in Spain to apply to the Hastings County Court in England to request yet another “public auction”  in Torrox Court in Spain at this juncture? It is incredible!

What  is more incredible is that a “public auction” in this part of Spain, as far as this blog understands, is not like those in the northern countries of Europe.

First, it  is announced by simply putting a notice on the board outside the clerk’s office in the court building. How often do you visit the court buildings to see if there is a public notice filed against you?

Secondly, the only attendants would have been Valerie Celia Russell and her legal representatives where, in this case, half of the property would have been “sold” and signed over to Valerie Celia Russell in private session with the judge.

Could it be that the “Catch 22″ the respondent found himself in was in fact a well thought out and calculated plan by De Cotta Law? Perhaps this “smoke and mirror” deception has been practiced before and has yet gone undetected.

Could it be that Valerie Celia Russell never wanted the property to be sold in order that her ex-husband would retain nothing from their former marriage? There is evidence to suggesst that this is what was happening.

Could it be that De Cotta Law are chasing fees that accumulated while preventing the respondent from honouring the court order? After losing their case in Torrox Court and the subsequent appeal this is quite possible.

Could it be that DeCotta McKenna & Santafé have lost their ethics, dignity, pride and honour?

A hearing is presently set for the 16th September 2009 in Hastings, England. Perhaps the answers to the questions posted here will be answered then.

Let Battle Commence!

Subscribe in a reader

Injustice in Europe with Blogcatalog

English Lawyers in Spain, Can You Trust Them?

Certain English lawyers in Spain are not to be trusted.

It seems that they are willing to flout laws and bamboozle ex-patriots of whatever nationality with their superior knowledge of the law, language and common practices. 

This does not only apply to English lawyers in Spain of course but let us concern ourselves with them for the time being.

This blog has cited the case of Edward Kirwan who was to be railroaded from his home on the 21st January 2009 as the result of an illegal action brought by De Cotta Law on behalf of their client Valerie Celia Russell. 

International laws become something  of a joke when a judge sitting in Hastings in England can pronounce a judgement in a divorce case based on a Spanish property valuation. The valuation was proven false,  it was written in Spanish which is a language the judge could neither read, write nor speak. Yet  District Judge Pollard was able to do this… how amazing…

Ask District Judge Pollard next time you see him…señor, habla español?

However, based on his superior knowledge of the law, his professional position and the fact that he had had an apartment and stayed in the Marbella or Puerto Banus area on his holidays, gave him, it appears,  sufficient understanding of the Spanish law to make a court order. 

Sadly, the court order was “mis-translated” by an Official Translator, Barry True and was used against Edward Kirwan, initially by Jon Sutton of DeCotta Law, to prevent him from honouring the court order. Interestingly, the official translation was acted upon several days before Barry True stamped it.

Time passed and DeCotta Law, on behalf of their client Valerie Celia Russell, appealed the decision of the Torrox Court on a technicality. De Cotta McKenna y Santafé had the appeal denied on 12th March 2009. 

De Cotta McKenna y Santafé have appealed again, this time to the higher court in Madrid…do De Cotta McKenna y Santafé really want to continue this charade? Do they want to defend their illegal action? The mind really boggles…or is it just another day in Surreal Spain?

I hear you shout “FRAUD” and you are not wrong…watch this space…

Wake up! There are ordinary intelligent individuals living and working in all parts of Spain and other countries in Europe, who are being exploited by  ”the system”. Why?

There are all manner of reasons but perhaps because they do not speak the language,  perhaps they do not understand the proceedures, perhaps they cannot afford to pay the fees of English lawyers in Spain but certainly they do not want to be exploited further.

Meanwhile, English Lawyer, Paula Basham and owner of Axar Property continues with business as usual with seemingly scant regard for the plight of her former employee (or as we are now noitfied employees).

Paula Basham is totally refusing to acknowledge or respect the heavy fines imposed on her by the Court in Malaga for her illegal actions.

Although the “office staff” at Axar Property have their lips tightly sealed, possibly through fear,  it appears nothing much has changed there in regard to employee’s rights and employer obligations. 

The misery and suffering these English lawyers in Spain have caused in the instances cited  above is quite beyond measure.

Anyone might forgive drunken louts behaving in this fashion but the action of these educated and presumably cold sober professionals brings disgrace to the English people and makes it  a shame to be known as English.