Track record

Marco successfully represented the VvE on appeal in a dispute with the contractor it had engaged about defects in balcony gallery floor elements. Limitation of the claim also played a role. The case ultimately went to the Supreme Court; the Hague Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the VvE, after which the case was referred to separate damages proceedings.

Lennard successfully represented a director in proceedings on the merits before the Rotterdam District Court. The director had previously been ordered by default to pay more than €15 million. On behalf of the director, Lennard lodged opposition against that judgment and raised a jurisdictional defence. The court upheld this defence, declared itself incompetent and dismissed all claims against the director.

For a departing partner in a dispute about termination and settlement of a general partnership before the Rotterdam District Court, AMS Advocaten achieved that the immediate dissolution by the other partners had no effect, that the client’s notice of termination as per 31 December 2019 was held valid and that an expert was appointed to determine the value of his partnership interest.

Sander successfully obtained the lifting of a prejudgment attachment on bank balances in summary proceedings, because the attaching creditor had violated Article 21 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure by not fully and truthfully disclosing all relevant facts when applying for the attachment.

As bankruptcy trustee in the insolvency of Disq Mobile Gym Nederland, Nienke successfully claimed the return of fitness equipment that had been wrongfully sold shortly before the bankruptcy through an unlawful pledge and execution. The opposing party’s appeal was also dismissed.

Marleen represented a party in proceedings about termination of a long-term agreement for the operation of a wind farm. In the event of a downgrade, the parties had to negotiate appropriate additional security. The district court held that Marleen’s client was allowed to terminate, but the Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion.

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal held that the meeting of the homeowners’ association (VvE) was not authorised to resolve to construct an emergency exit from the staircase to the roof. The space between the staircase and the roof was not part of the common property but belonged to the private section of the apartment owner represented by Denise. As a result, the owner did not have to demolish her mezzanine at the top of the stairs.

Lennard successfully represented a shareholder in a shareholder dispute in summary proceedings before the Amsterdam District Court. The shareholder recovered 50% of his shares, continued to receive his salary and the dismissal resolution was suspended.

Lennard represented an employer in proceedings on the merits before the Noord-Holland District Court. The court held that the employee was liable for more than €80,000.

Lennard successfully represented an employee who had been summarily dismissed. On appeal, the ’s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal ordered the employer to pay more than €230,000.