A carpentry company in Ibiza has been ordered to replace custom-made wooden furniture after a court case concerning a woodworm infestation in a private home reached the Audiencia Provincial de Illes Balears.

The provincial court has confirmed the original judgment against the company, requiring it to manufacture and deliver replacement furniture for the items affected by the infestation.

The appellate judgment was issued on September 15, 2026, and rejected both the appeal brought by the carpentry company and a separate appeal filed by the homeowner.

Two Tables and Around 20 Oak Worktops

The original judgment, issued by Ibiza's Juzgado de Primera Instancia número 2 on February 18, 2025, required the company to replace two solid-oak tables measuring 300 by 140 centimetres.

It also ordered the replacement of approximately 20 oak worktops distributed throughout the property, including six bathrooms, the kitchen and an office.

The replacement furniture must be delivered with antiparasitic treatment and varnishing, and the existing affected furniture must be dismantled. The company has a maximum of four months to complete the replacement.

The Dispute Over the Homeowner's Status

One of the company's main arguments on appeal concerned the legal status of the homeowner.

The carpentry company argued that she had acted as an autopromotora, or self-developer, of the property rather than as a consumer.

The distinction was important because the company argued that the case should instead be considered under Spain's building legislation, specifically the Ley de Ordenación de la Edificación, and that the claim had therefore become time-barred.

The court rejected that argument.

The Audiencia Provincial concluded that the homeowner was a consumer, because the furniture had been commissioned for her private residence and not for a business activity.

The court also found that the carpentry company could not be treated as an agent of the building process under the LOE because its role was limited to manufacturing and installing the bespoke carpentry.

When Was the Infestation Discovered?

The furniture was delivered in November 2017.

According to the proceedings, the first signs of the infestation appeared in July 2019.

The company argued that the claim was therefore subject to limitation rules applicable under its interpretation of the case.

The court did not accept that position after determining that the homeowner was protected as a consumer under the applicable legislation.

The Court Examined Whether the Risk Had Been Explained

Another important issue was whether the homeowner had been warned about the possibility of an infestation.

The court concluded that there was no sufficient proof that such a warning had been given.

The architect involved in the project said she did not remember any warning of this type.

The court also examined emails exchanged between the parties. Those communications dealt primarily with the aesthetic treatment of the wood, including colours, stains and varnishes, rather than with an antiparasitic treatment or the potential risk of infestation.

A construction coordinator gave evidence that the issue had been discussed, but the court gave that testimony less weight because no meeting record or document confirming the warning was produced.

Evidence About the Origin of the Infestation

Expert evidence played an important role in establishing what may have happened to the wood.

An expert specialising in wood pathologies explained that the insect responsible, described in the proceedings as the domestic longhorn beetle, can have a larval cycle lasting between four and 15 years.

According to the expert evidence cited by the court, this made it highly unlikely that the infestation had developed after the furniture was installed in the property.

The expert considered it practically impossible for the wood to have become infested after installation and ruled out that possibility with a very high degree of certainty.

A court-appointed expert also placed responsibility for the necessary treatment on the side of the wood distributor.

The ruling does not, however, establish that the carpentry company knowingly supplied infested timber.

The Homeowner Had Sought a Solution

The company also argued that the homeowner had failed to act promptly after discovering the problem.

A treatment was reportedly quoted at €3,000.80, but it was never carried out.

The Audiencia Provincial rejected the argument that the homeowner had simply remained passive.

Among the evidence considered was an email sent by her husband in July 2020 urgently requesting a solution and warning that the condition of the wood was deteriorating significantly.

The correspondence also warned that legal action could follow if the matter was not resolved.

The Homeowner's Own Appeal Was Also Rejected

The homeowner had also appealed part of the original judgment.

She sought to have the cost of her expert report, €1,778.70, treated as compensable damage rather than simply as part of the legal costs.

The Audiencia Provincial rejected this argument as well.

The court considered that the expense was covered by the applicable rules on legal costs and did not constitute a separate item of damages simply because the expert report had been commissioned before the court proceedings began.

The Original Judgment Remains Confirmed

With both appeals rejected, the original judgment remains fully confirmed.

The carpentry company must therefore replace the affected furniture within the four-month period established by the court.

Each party must also bear the costs of its own appeal, and both lose the deposits lodged in connection with their respective appeals.

A Case About Bespoke Furniture and Consumer Protection

The case highlights the legal responsibilities that can arise when bespoke furniture is installed in a private home and subsequently develops serious defects.

The court's decision also makes clear that the fact a property was developed by its owner did not, in this case, prevent that person from being considered a consumer when purchasing furniture for private use.

Most importantly, the ruling turns on the specific evidence presented to the courts, including the expert assessment of the wood infestation, the communications between the parties and the circumstances in which the furniture was commissioned and installed.

The final outcome is that the affected furniture must be replaced, with the carpentry company given four months to carry out the work.