Track record

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.

Following a land consolidation, certain easements had lapsed. Together with Denise, Marco successfully represented parties opposing the lapse of these easements. The district court held that the easements had been re-established through acquisitive prescription, because the claimants had been possessors in good faith for at least ten years. The Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion.

Marco acted for a client who was confronted with additional work invoices. The district court held that there was no valid additional work and dismissed the claims.

Lennard represented a shareholder of a healthcare company. On behalf of the client, he petitioned the Enterprise Chamber to order an inquiry. The Enterprise Chamber found there were well-founded reasons to doubt the soundness of the company’s policy and course of affairs, justifying an investigation, and appointed a director with a casting vote.

Lennard represented a shareholder of a healthcare company. On behalf of the client, he petitioned the Enterprise Chamber to order an inquiry. The Enterprise Chamber found there were well-founded reasons to doubt the soundness of policy and the course of affairs, justifying an investigation. This was due, among other things, to the transfer of staff by the director, declining profits and transactions in which the director had a conflict of interest.

Lennard assisted a client against whom an evidence seizure had been levied. The request to inspect the seized information was fully rejected because there was an insufficient link between the claim for which the seizure had been granted and the legal basis of the disclosure claim.

Thomas won summary proceedings brought by CBRE against his client, an Amsterdam retailer. CBRE sought eviction, claiming that the lease had ended and that it urgently needed the premises for its own use due to a shopping centre renovation. The preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court dismissed the claims and ordered CBRE to pay the legal costs.

Marco successfully obtained conservatory attachments for a contractor in a dispute with its client, who had failed to pay the contractor’s invoices. The client sought to have the attachments lifted in summary proceedings, but that claim was dismissed.

Lennard conducted summary proceedings for a Danish client. The court ordered the defendant to disclose her sources of income and assets by, among other things, providing insight into her bank statements, debtors and other income in the Netherlands and abroad.

Lennard represented a Belgian director in a director’s liability case before the Rotterdam District Court, in which he was being held liable for €300,000. All claims against the director were dismissed because it had not been established that he could personally be seriously blamed. The opposing party was ordered to pay €8,000 in legal costs.