Track record

In this case, AMS represented an association that had terminated a member’s membership. The member contested the termination. The articles of association provided for an internal appeal in case of termination. Because the member wished to appeal but the board refused to convene the required general meeting, the board’s termination decision was held to be contrary to the reasonableness and fairness required by Article 2:8 Dutch Civil Code.

The claimants sought an order that the defendant, represented by Denise, lift all conservatory attachments on the grounds of, among other things, breach of the duty of truth under Article 21 CCP. The defendant successfully contested this; only part of the attachments was lifted because that part turned out not to be necessary.

In this case, the contractor claimed that the clients represented by Denise had to pay more than €55,000 extra because the contractor claimed to have incurred those costs on a cost-plus basis. The clients disputed that arrangement and that they owed more than the fixed contract price. The court held that the contractor had insufficiently substantiated that the clients owed him more.

AMS successfully represented a client in proceedings about alleged transgressive behaviour at a student association. In proceedings on the merits, the decision to expel the client from membership was annulled due to breach of the right to be heard and lack of factual basis; the court ordered a rectification and declared that the allegations constituted an unlawful act.

In an arbitration concerning a home warranty dispute, Rosa represented two private clients in a dispute with their contractor. The arbitrator awarded fixed damages for construction delay. In addition, several defects were established that the contractor had to remedy. For defects that had already been repaired by third parties without giving the contractor the opportunity to do so himself, the arbitrator awarded compensation based on the contractor’s saved costs.

Together with a colleague, Lennard represented a client on appeal who had held a lawyer liable for professional negligence. The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal held that the lawyer should have pointed out the short limitation period for penalties and was responsible for enforcement of the judgments. The lawyer therefore had to compensate the client’s loss, which the court assessed at €15,000.

In court proceedings, Rosa claimed on behalf of a contractor reimbursement of costs incurred to repair defects caused by a subcontractor. The court held that, despite having been given the opportunity, the subcontractor had failed to remedy the defects and was liable for the repair costs. The fact that those costs were higher than the subcontractor’s original quote was at the subcontractor’s risk.

Denise won a case for a contractor who held its subcontractor liable for serious defects. The Limburg District Court found that the subcontractor had paid insufficient attention to the requirements for the installation and that it was not credible that the damage had been caused by an emergency outside the main contractor’s risk. The subcontractor was ordered to pay, among other things, repair costs, consequential damages and extrajudicial costs to the main contractor.

In an interlocutory incident under Article 843a CCP, AMS Advocaten obtained an order requiring the accountant to provide detailed invoice specifications from 2017 onwards, subject to a penalty payment, rejecting the opposing party’s defences.

Marleen was appointed as bankruptcy trustee of a private limited company involved in an inquiry procedure. The procedure does not end upon bankruptcy. As part of the restart of the business, Marleen negotiated that the inquiry had to be withdrawn.