Track record

Thomas assisted a professional property investor that had purchased a retail and office building. In the purchase agreement, the seller had undertaken to conclude a new five-year lease with the sitting tenant within three months of the transfer of the property. If he failed to do so, he would have to pay a financial penalty calculated on the basis of the purchase multiplier. The District Court of Midden-Nederland held that this was an obligation of result rather than an obligation of best endeavours. It ordered the seller to pay €60,000 plus statutory commercial interest. The case is currently (September 2026) pending on appeal.

Kelly and Lennard conducted interim relief proceedings on behalf of a ticketing platform provider against a customer that had started using its own ticketing platform for its branches, despite a cooperation agreement containing an exclusivity clause running until the end of 2027. The interim relief judge considered the client’s interpretation reasonable but refused the claim for specific performance, because whether exclusivity had been agreed requires evidence to be taken in proceedings on the merits. The claim for disclosure under Article 194 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (the successor to former Article 843a) was, however, granted. Until the end of 2027, the customer must report each quarter the number of tickets sold online and offline per branch, subject to a penalty payment, so that the client can quantify its damages.

Onno and Xagan represented the selling shareholders in a post-closing dispute arising from a management buy-out. The shareholders faced claims based on error (dwaling) as to the purchase price, the warranties and other alleged breaches of the sale and purchase agreement and the management retention arrangement. After extensive correspondence and the issuing of a writ of summons to recover the vendor loan, the parties brought the dispute to an end by concluding a settlement agreement. This provided, among other things, for repayment of the vendor loans and for the cancellation of the non-solicitation and non-competition clauses.

In January 2026, Lennard again successfully represented the same property trader in substantive proceedings before the Amsterdam District Court, this time concerning the sale of a different agricultural plot. The purchaser sought annulment of the purchase agreement on the grounds of unfair commercial practices and mistake, together with retransfer of the plot and repayment of the purchase price of €119,505. The court dismissed all claims: the brochure, the sales conversations, and in particular the verification form and telephone verification call made clear that no guarantees were given regarding a (timely) change of planning designation or increase in value, and that the purchaser was aware of the speculative nature of the transaction and the risk of loss. A subsequent telephone conversation revealed expectations at most, not commitments. The purchaser was ordered to pay costs of €10,897.

In January 2026, Lennard successfully represented a property trader in substantive proceedings before the Amsterdam District Court. A purchaser of an agricultural plot sought annulment of the purchase agreement on the grounds of alleged unfair commercial practices and mistake, claiming repayment of the purchase price of €52,209 and retransfer of the plot. The court dismissed all claims: neither the brochure, the (sales) conversations, nor the verification process could have led the purchaser to conclude that a change of planning designation to residential use was certain in the near term, and the trader had moreover given no express guarantees. The purchaser was ordered to pay costs of €5,601.

Marleen and Willem represented a director who was held personally liable by the landlord of the BV she managed. The BV intended to operate a lunchroom, but when it became clear that the zoning plan was insufficient and no operating licence would be granted, the BV terminated the lease agreement. The landlord claimed that the BV’s directors were liable for the damages suffered (missed rental payments). The court dismissed all claims and ordered the landlord to pay the legal costs.

Kelly and Lennard concluded a settlement agreement on behalf of a software company with its client following an earlier judgment. Under that agreement, the client is ordered to perform the contract after all, subject to a penalty payment.

Lennard successfully represented a director and several companies that were being held liable for full legal costs of €400,000 incurred in earlier proceedings. The court ruled in favour of Lennard’s clients, finding that they had not abused process or acted unlawfully through their litigation conduct. The claimant was ordered to pay AMS’s client €13,853.00 in legal costs.

Onno and Xagan successfully represented a company in an inquiry procedure following the sale of the business to a listed US company. The Enterprise Chamber dismissed the minority shareholder’s request for an inquiry.

Sander, Kelly and Lennard assisted a Danish/American client at a WHOA hearing. The client had a claim against a Dutch debtor who tried to prevent and/or delay attachments by obtaining a cooling-off period. Sander, Lennard and Kelly managed to prevent this. The client was then better able to collect the remainder of its claims.