The Supreme Court has agreed to admit the appeal filed by the companies Tasolan, SL and Palm Oasis Mantenimiento, SL, controlled by the Irish agricultural group Bonny, on time sharing in Maspalomas against the judgment issued on June 23, 2023 by the Provincial Court of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Fifth Section), within the appeal roll 644/2022, which derives from an ordinary trial initiated in the Court of First Instance No. 2 of San Bartolomé de Tirajana (orders 971/2021), as Maspalomas24H was able to verify this Wednesday.
In the 2024 financial year, the entities linked to the Bonny group—Agrícola Bonny SL, Juliano Bonny Gómez SL, and SAT Juliano Bonny Gómez—received a total of €9.553.480,43 in public aid and subsidies. These contributions come mainly from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries of the Government of the Canary Islands, the State Agricultural Insurance Entity (ENESA), and the Canary Islands Government Delegation. They include lines such as POSEI (with direct aid for the marketing of fruits and vegetables, the promotion of winter tomatoes, and the readaptation of markets), compensation for agricultural transport, collective agricultural insurance, as well as specific measures such as control of the Tuta absoluta pest or reduction of the additional cost of irrigation water. This overall figure reflects the strong dependence of the Canarian agricultural sector on public policies supporting local production.
According to the ruling of July 23, 2025, signed by the rapporteur Ignacio Sancho Gargallo, the Civil Division of the Supreme Court finds that the legal requirements of Article 477.2.3 of the Civil Procedure Law (LEC) are met, and therefore the procedure to review the previous ruling is opened. The respondent, represented by attorney Carlos Cabrero del Nero, has a period of 20 days to file its opposition. The appeal was filed by attorney Sandra Pérez Almeida on behalf of Tasolan and Palm Oasis, and has been accompanied by the corresponding required legal deposit. The ruling, issued by judges Sancho Gargallo, Pedro José Vela Torres, and Antonio García Martínez, is not appealable, as established in the ruling itself.
The litigation arose from the nullity of a timeshare contract dated March 7, 2002, which was declared invalid because it was an open-ended contract that violated Law 42/1998 (LATBI). In the first instance, the court ordered Tasolan and Palm Oasis to jointly and severally repay 3.840 pounds sterling for the contract and other undue payments, plus interest, and upheld the counterclaim for a debt of 273,21 euros. On appeal, the Provincial Court partially amended the ruling, reducing the amount to 3.210 pounds, but upheld the nullity of the contract and the award of costs to the companies. The substantial award of the claim filed by César and Ana María, represented by attorney Carmen Dolores Padilla Nieto and lawyer Pablo Antonio Clavel Pérez, was upheld.
Now, with the admission of the appeal, a twenty-day period opens for the respondent party to formally file its objection. The appealing companies are represented by attorney María Sandra Pérez Almeida and lawyer Álvaro Campanario Hernández. The Supreme Court's ruling is not subject to appeal, and the final decision may have implications for other similar cases involving the marketing of tourist weeks under conditions that violate consumer protection regulations.
