Six invoices, plus interest and costs.
CIVIL CASE · FEES · GUARANTEE · JUAN TOMÁS PARRILLA DEFENCE
Garrigues, the wider matter and the La Laguna proceeding.
This record connects the 2012 Garrigues mandate, its €63,441.67 claim against Gil and Patricia, Juan Tomás Parrilla's defence and the transition into Insolvency Proceeding 36/2012. Judgment 41/2014 dismissed the claim in full and ordered Garrigues to pay first-instance costs.
Verified result
The claim was dismissed in full.
A contemporaneous 18 February 2014 PDF, checked page by page.
Order: Gil Marer and Patricia Domínguez Montelongo were absolved from the claims; Garrigues was ordered to pay first-instance costs. The judgment stated that it was appealable. No finality certificate or appeal file has yet been located.
What is located - and what is not
| Record | Status | Public treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Judgment 41/2014 | LOCATED | Seven-page original PDF, 319,679 bytes, SHA-256 1d39af97…d9ac8b2a. A complete substantive Spanish transcription is published. |
| Garrigues claim | NOT LOCATED | This page reconstructs it only from the judgment's summary. It is not the original pleading and contains no annexes. |
| Gil/Patricia defence | NOT LOCATED | This page reconstructs it only from the judgment's summary. It is not the original pleading and contains no annexes. |
| Communications | AUDITED RETRIEVAL | Counts, dates and verifiable propositions are published; email bodies, addresses, Gmail IDs, bank data and privileged advice are withheld. Document-level classification remains open. |
| Wider matter / Parrilla court records | PARTIAL COVERAGE | The name-based audit recovered a broad corpus, but not every pleading and decision is identified, held in the repository and published in redacted form. Open the Spanish public coverage matrix. |
| Costs, appeal and finality | OUTSTANDING | Assessment, approval, collection/application, any appeal and finality certification are absent. |
Completeness limit: “not located” does not mean “non-existent”. The reconstructions will not be described as complete claim or defence until certified copies are obtained.
The Garrigues mandate and wider matter
The 24 January 2012 engagement letter jointly treated Monterecco Sun Park Limited and Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. (LPB) as the client; in the document, the latter's name appears literally as “Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.”. It provided for ordinary billing to LPB and separate guarantees. Verified scope included identifying litigation, Community/CEXP issues, Bankia enforcement and restructuring, Article 5 bis, insolvency preparation, funding and corporate, notarial and tax support.
Identity control: LPB means Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U., CIF B35998582, the form used in the official notice for Insolvency 36/2012. The Commercial Registry Gazette records the denomination LUCHY PLAYA BLANCA SOCIEDAD LIMITADA and its sole-shareholder status. “Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.” remains in the data where it reproduces a historical document literally; it does not replace the canonical narrative name.
This corrects the former 28 March date boundary: the 1 and 6 February 2012 instruments fall within the documentary mandate period. It does not prove that Garrigues originated, drafted, received or approved them before signature; the instrument-specific draft, instruction and advice bridge remains missing.
The retrieval found 1,037 Garrigues messages in 639 threads; 178 messages in 96 threads contain an @garrigues.com header address. These are retrieval counts, not unique court documents. The verified mandate core is in 2012. Garrigues Madrid/Urban Input contacts in 2019 do not by themselves establish a new retainer.
| Proceeding | Connection | Public status |
|---|---|---|
| PO 1241/2011 + measures 1355/2011 | Separate Garrigues litigation engagement; part of the handover context. | Identity and billing captured; complete file outstanding. |
| Insolvency 36/2012 | Parrilla assumed LPB's representation after the Garrigues period. | Digests and selected redacted records; no complete certified index. |
| PO 562/2014 + PO 213/2015 | Later Community/LPB continuity under Parrilla. | Captured in the master register; complete files outstanding. |
| AP roll 1094/2018 | Insolvency appeal during the Parrilla period. | Partial coverage; complete appeal roll outstanding. |
Completeness result: it would be inaccurate to say that every Parrilla pleading and decision is already online. The linked matrix identifies what is located, what is public and what remains in the production queue.
Claim - reconstruction from the judgment
SECONDARY RECONSTRUCTION: the filed claim and documents 1-7 are not in the located corpus.
The judgment records that Garrigues sued Gil and Patricia as guarantors of Luchy's obligations under a January 2012 legal-services proposal. It sought €63,441.67, statutory interest and costs.
The engagement was described in three blocks: an executive report on Luchy's position; updating its litigation, with advocacy separately chargeable; and Bankia debt restructuring. The first two were charged at €310 per hour. The third carried a stated fixed price of €85,000 and, according to the judgment, was not part of this claim.
Garrigues said it performed document, corporate, litigation, notarial and financial review work between January and June 2012. The relationship ended after Garrigues learned that the insolvency petition had been filed with different counsel. A central difficulty recorded in the judgment was that the monthly fee claims mixed work under the first two blocks with Bankia restructuring, tax advice and separately priced litigation.
Defence - reconstruction from the judgment
SECONDARY RECONSTRUCTION: the filed defence under Juan Tomás Parrilla's direction and its annexes are not in the located corpus.
The judgment records these defence lines:
- the claim was premature while the invoices' treatment in Luchy's insolvency remained unresolved;
- the guarantee clause did not create internal joint-and-several liability among every co-guarantor;
- the executive report was not delivered, or at least was neither produced nor described;
- the work updating all proceedings was not adequately evidenced;
- the emails mixed subject matters and did not allocate hours to specific tasks;
- Bankia restructuring was a separate fixed-price block and not part of this claim;
- the €2,835 tax invoice fell outside the guaranteed engagement; and
- the €9,450 invoice belonged to a separate litigation engagement and was not personally guaranteed by Gil and Patricia.
The judgment does not reproduce the defence's full legal grounds, literal prayer for relief, annexes or their procedural order. Those remain open evidence.
Why the claim failed
The judge found that a professional relationship existed and that Garrigues performed multiple meetings, tasks and pieces of work. The dismissal did not find that no work had been done. It held that the evidence did not allow the court to quantify what could properly be recovered from Gil and Patricia under the guarantee.
Mixed work
Entries combined Bankia restructuring, separately billed litigation and other matters outside the claimed perimeter.
Unallocated hours
The invoices and supporting narrative did not adequately tie each proved task to time spent.
Guarantee perimeter
Tax advice and a separate litigation engagement could not automatically be passed to the individual guarantors.
The six invoices and the later insolvency effect
The six-invoice demand sent on 20 June 2012 totalled €64,318.20. The later court claim totalled €63,441.67. The €876.53 difference exactly equals the IGIC shown on invoice 10014806. The arithmetic bridge is exact; the original claim and annexes are still needed to establish its legal and tax treatment.
| Invoice | Amount | 2014 treatment | 2016 insolvency texts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10015483 | €9,450.00 | Separate litigation; outside the disputed personal guarantee. | Retained. |
| 10015502 | €12,142.23 | Mixed/Bankia restructuring; insufficient task/hour allocation. | Excluded. |
| 10015503 | €2,835.00 | Tax advice outside the guaranteed contract. | Retained. |
| 10015504 | €8,300.25 | Some work proved; insufficient hour allocation. | Excluded. |
| 10015505 | €13,183.56 | Some work proved; insufficient hour allocation. | Excluded. |
| 58000002113 | €17,530.63 | Mixed/Bankia restructuring; insufficient task/hour allocation. | Excluded. |
| Total | €63,441.67 | €51,156.67 excluded; €12,285.00 retained in 2016. | |
A 23 November 2015 order and the 2016 definitive insolvency texts treated four invoices as affected by res judicata. That is a later, separate insolvency consequence; it does not rewrite the 2014 civil judgment.
Payment routes that must not be conflated
17 / 23 May 2012 · Hava Vida Travel & Tourism, S.L.U. paid €9,450 to Garrigues
The correspondence also uses the historic literal “HAVAVIDA” and says the transfer occurred on 17 May; LPB's vendor ledger posts it on 23 May. It concerned the separate challenge-of-resolutions/interim-measures litigation. This was not a payment to Juan Tomás Parrilla Suárez. The bank account is not published.
La Laguna defence · initial €1,250 to Juan Tomás
The parties' 2020 reconciliations agree that the Garrigues case against Gil and Patricia carried a total €2,500 fee and that €1,250 was paid initially. Contemporaneous bank proof is missing.
Costs/application · a further €1,250 to Juan Tomás
The 2020 material describes a second €1,250. Parrilla said that after winning with costs the amount was applied to the insolvency matter; Patricia recalled that he would retain the costs and apply them to the unpaid balance. The costs assessment, collection record, bank debit and ledger are missing.
Provisional accounting conclusion: Juan Tomás Parrilla Suárez's La Laguna defence fee was €2,500 in total. Only one €1,250 leg appears expressly as a credit in Parrilla's insolvency-fee reconciliation. The €9,450 Hava Vida Travel & Tourism, S.L.U.→Garrigues transfer is a separate route.
LPB Garrigues vendor ledger
The vendor ledger dated 10 July 2013 records four 2012 Garrigues invoices totalling €85,353.06, four credits/payments totalling €66,945.90, and a €18,407.16 balance. Its descriptors refer to Monterecco, BBVA and HAVAVIDA, but it is client accounting—not an independent bank statement.
Identity control: there were two distinct “Monterecco” legal persons. Spanish Monterecco Sun Park, S.L.U. became Pink Canary Services, S.L.U., NIF B76564517; the exact registry date of that change remains open. UK Monterecco Sun Park Limited became Aweswell Limited, company no. 07716847, in 2014. An accounting descriptor saying only “Monterecco” cannot identify which entity paid or the account used; the BBVA debit is required. OSWELL 426 S.L. is another distinct entity.
Controlled names and Parrilla corpus mastery
The project-side Spanish perimeter is controlled as Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. (LPB), Matkator, S.L.U., Pink Canary Services, S.L.U.—formerly Monterecco Sun Park, S.L.U.—and Hava Vida Travel & Tourism, S.L.U. This is a historical project classification, not a statement of current corporate or tax status.
Verified connected-text coverage: 98.6% (1,502/1,523 units). All 1,094 messages in the direct-address set and all 429 unique Drive documents returned by the completed paginated search were fetched; 1,092 messages and 410 documents contained readable text. Nineteen documents require OCR/native review, two messages had no body, and 27 attachments are unsupported by the connector. All 1,219 attachments are inventoried, but hash deduplication against Drive remains open.
The 98.6% figure measures connected-text review, not court-file completeness. There is still no certified index supporting a 100% claim for every pleading, decision, annex and communication. The original PO 344/2013 claim and defence, annexes, docket, costs/finality material, invoices/receipts and bank proof remain open.
Open the public company register · Open the full canonical-name control
Juan Tomás fees: pro-forma located; invoices and receipts outstanding
| Record | Amount | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Pro-forma, 29 May 2012 | €40,000 + IGIC | €20,000 + IGIC before filing and five quarterly €4,000 + IGIC instalments. It is a budget, not a final tax invoice or receipt. |
| Internal Aweswell accounting schedule | €20,000 and €10,000 | Retrospective entries within the business perimeter funding LPB work; they are neither bank records nor invoices. The first appears base-only beside Parrilla's stated €21,000 gross receipt; IGIC reconciliation is open. |
| Parrilla's written account, 11 Jun 2020 | €32,250 received | €21,000 in 2012, €1,250 in La Laguna and a €10,000 cheque in 2018, according to Parrilla. Exact payers, receipts and debits are absent. |
| Parrilla's final proposal | €50,000 + IGIC; €17,750 + IGIC balance | The proposed increase was rejected; it does not establish an accepted variation. |
| Later IA report | €25,000 + 7% IGIC = €26,750 | The base paid is €9,000 above the stated base balance even under the rejected proposal. Invoice, authority, bank debit and complete ledger are absent. |
No final debt, overpayment or restitution is fixed. Invoice(s), receipts, IGIC, costs allocation, exact payer, authority and bank/estate entries are required.
Located communications - public index, not private bodies
| Date | Verifiable content | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| 9-17 May 2012 | €9,450 request and confirmation of a Hava Vida Travel & Tourism, S.L.U.→Garrigues transfer for the separate litigation; the communication uses the literal “HAVAVIDA”. | No addresses, bank account or full body. |
| 10 Jun 2013 | Payment chain forwarded to Parrilla; a bank copy was said to have been sent separately. | The bank copy has not been located here. |
| 24 Nov / 9 Dec 2013 | Gil escalated an engagement/dispute chronology to Garrigues and sought an amicable resolution. | Party account; private body withheld. |
| 19-20 Feb 2014 | Judgment sent, meeting requested and file review acknowledged. | Does not prove any later agreement. |
| 28-30 May 2020 | Client reconciliation: €2,500 budget, €1,250 initial, €1,250 later, with costs retention/application described. | Entries and receipts remain missing. |
| 11-12 Jun 2020 | Parrilla reconciliation: €1,250 received in the La Laguna case and €1,250 later applied to the insolvency matter. | Retrospective description, not bank proof. |
English summary of 344/2013
Non-certified translation and summary: this English page translates and summarises the Spanish Judgment 41/2014 for access. It is not a separate judgment, certified translation, filed pleading or substitute for the Spanish source.
In summary, Garrigues sued Gil and Patricia under a guarantee for six LPB invoices. The court accepted that professional work had been carried out, but found that the material did not adequately allocate tasks and hours within the guaranteed scope and mixed Bankia restructuring, tax and separately engaged litigation. It therefore dismissed the claim in full and ordered Garrigues to pay first-instance costs. The judgment said it was appealable; appeal and finality records have not been located.
Production required to close the record
- certified index and complete certified copy of PO 344/2013;
- claim, defence and every annex;
- preliminary hearing, trial and final-witness records/recordings;
- service, appeal and finality records;
- costs assessment, approval, collection and application;
- bank proof for both €1,250 legs;
- complete certified 23 November 2015 order and 2016 insolvency texts; and
- resolution of the judgment's internal 1241/2011, 1241/2009 and 1271/2011 variants.
Open the complete Spanish judgment transcription →
Open the wider-matter coverage register →
Corpus last reviewed 24 August 2026. This page distinguishes documented fact, judicial summary, party recollection and missing evidence. Garrigues may supply favourable, adverse or corrective material; any response will be incorporated under the same source discipline.