Track record

Sander represented the owner of fashion brand SAPPH in a dispute with a (former) licensee. The former licensee had breached the licence agreement and continued to use the brand unlawfully after the client terminated the agreement. In summary proceedings, Sander obtained an order against the former licensee and its directors to cease use of the brand and to refrain from making unlawful statements about who owned the brand.

Denise successfully represented a contractor in summary proceedings brought by the client to force resumption of the work. The contractor had suspended performance because invoices remained unpaid. The Midden-Nederland District Court largely ruled in favour of the contractor, ordering the client to pay and holding that the contractor only had to resume work after payment.

Xagan represented a company in an inquiry procedure initiated by one of the shareholders concerning the minority shareholder’s right to information and possible conflicts of interest of directors. The Enterprise Chamber dismissed the minority shareholder’s request for an inquiry.

Together with Denise, Marco successfully held a home seller liable on behalf of the buyer for a defect that impeded normal use of the property. In assessing the damage, the court estimated the actual repair costs, taking into account depreciation (“new for old”). In this interim judgment, the court put questions to the seller.

Nienke and Lennard assisted a client who had been asked to provide information to a German claimant. That request was largely denied; only a few anonymised invoices had to be provided.

In summary proceedings about an investment dispute between private investors and an investment fund in managed accounts, the monetary claim of AMS’s clients was allowed. The company was ordered to repay and to provide insight into returns and – conditionally – the director was held personally and jointly liable if the company failed to pay.

In 2024, Clemens represented a client in a dispute with a car dealer about a camper van worth €50,000 that developed defects shortly after purchase. The seller refused to carry out repairs and argued that the buyer was not allowed to engage a third party to perform them. Clemens demanded payment of €11,000 in repair costs and, after the seller rejected the demand, brought proceedings before the subdistrict court. The court ruled in favour of his client: the seller was ordered to pay the full amount, plus extrajudicial collection costs, statutory interest and legal costs.

Lennard and Kelly conducted summary proceedings in February 2025 in a third-party attachment declaration procedure, because several third-party garnishees refused to submit a correct and complete third-party attachment declaration. The preliminary relief judge ordered the garnishees to submit written, accurate, reasoned and documented declarations and to pay to the bailiff any amounts owed under those declarations, subject to a penalty payment.

For a Dutch client, Lennard levied a prejudgment attachment on a seagoing vessel abroad under the Arrest Convention. The vessel was placed in judicial custody so it could not sail away. Under that pressure, the owner of the vessel entered into a settlement agreement.

Rosa represented a client in a special distribution case. The client and a business partner jointly owned a rented house and wanted to end this structure. They agreed that the client would acquire full ownership of the property for a set purchase price. When a dispute arose and the partner refused to honour the agreement, he started proceedings and claimed that the client should be ordered to cooperate in a sale to a third party at a higher price. The court rejected that claim: there was a valid purchase agreement which the partner had to perform.