Track record

In this case, AMS Advocaten represented an association that had terminated a member’s membership. The issue was whether the board had validly terminated the membership on the grounds that the member’s continued membership could no longer reasonably be required. The district court held that the board had sufficiently observed the principles of hearing and rebuttal, that termination – rather than expulsion – was the appropriate route, and that the board had reasonably acted within its policy discretion. The claims for annulment of the decision were dismissed and the claimant was ordered to pay the costs.

Hidde represented the lessor of a car rental company based in Curaçao, who claimed compensation from a lessee after the leased car was stolen. The Court of Appeal held that it had been provisionally proven that the lessor had warned the lessee at the time of signing the rental agreement about the risk of theft (and not taking out theft insurance), or at least that the lessee had deliberately waived theft insurance. The lessee was allowed to provide counter-evidence but failed to do so.

In summary proceedings, AMS Advocaten acted for an allotment association in a dispute about whether a son could continue his mother’s membership. The preliminary relief judge held that there was no right to continuation or partner membership, dismissed all claims and ordered the claimant to pay the costs.

Onno successfully represented a company in proceedings in which the opposing party sought leave to call a third party in warranty. The court dismissed that request.

This landmark case concerned the annulment of an arbitral award. Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in cassation, greater weight must now be given to mediation clauses in agreements between professional parties.

In these summary proceedings, termination of the membership was held to be valid, and the court ruled that the association could not reasonably be required to allow continuation, so the plot had to be vacated and the member was ordered, subject to penalties, to cooperate with valuation and transfer of the garden shed.

Onno represented several foundation directors in a principled dispute with a fellow director about the performance of directors’ duties.

In proceedings about the dissolution and division of a general partnership (vof), the Rotterdam District Court held – after expert evidence – that the business was continued by the remaining partners and that they had to pay AMS’s client an amount for under-allocation, in addition to his legal costs.

Thomas successfully represented an Indonesian commercial agent in a dispute over an agency agreement with a Dutch company.

This case essentially concerned whether there was a loan agreement between a company and one of its shareholders, AMS Advocaten’s client. The district court held that there was and that the company had to repay the loan.