Track Record

Denise prevented a house from being auctioned due to mortgage arrears. She initiated summary proceedings to compel the bank to cancel the auction on the grounds that proceeding with the sale would be unacceptable according to standards of reasonableness and fairness and contrary to the bank’s duty of care. A settlement was reached at the hearing, giving the homeowner more time to arrange financing.

Onno and Sander acted for the German investors’ association SdK (Schutzgemeinschaft der Kapitalanleger e.V.). In the public WHOA proceedings of Steinhoff International Holdings N.V., the Amsterdam District Court confirmed the plan on 21 June 2023. The case involved approximately €10.4 billion in debt and was one of the largest WHOA restructuring cases to date.

Denise won a case about easements that had lapsed due to land consolidation but re-arose through prescription. The Amsterdam District Court held that the claimant’s legal predecessors had used the path for more than 10 years as if there was an easement. Because they were also in good faith, the easements had been re-established.

On behalf of online travel agency eDreams, Thomas successfully filed a complaint against the editor-in-chief of broadcaster Omroep MAX with the Press Council.

Xagan represented a company in a dispute concerning an option to purchase a commercial property. The Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court held that the seller could no longer perform its obligations under the option agreement after selling the property to a third party. The court rescinded the option agreement and ordered the seller to refund the option fees already paid, totalling €187,550.

Sander successfully represented a franchisor in a dispute with a franchisee. At the franchisor’s request, the franchisee was ordered to pay damages for breaching a non-compete clause and to transfer domain names to the franchisor.

Onno successfully represented a foundation that wanted to dismiss two of its directors. In the final judgment, the court held that the dismissed directors were personally liable for improper withdrawals.

In this case, AMS Advocaten represented an association that had terminated a member’s membership. The issue was whether the board had validly terminated the membership on the grounds that the member’s continued membership could no longer reasonably be required. The district court held that the board had sufficiently observed the principles of hearing and rebuttal, that termination – rather than expulsion – was the appropriate route, and that the board had reasonably acted within its policy discretion. The claims for annulment of the decision were dismissed and the claimant was ordered to pay the costs.

A dog grooming salon causing noise nuisance was ordered by the court to comply with the noise limits set out in the Activities Decree, subject to penalties. In proceedings initiated by Denise, the Amsterdam District Court held that unlawful noise nuisance had been established and that it was up to the salon to take measures when opening its business. The fact that the salon was located in Amsterdam, where residents generally have to tolerate more noise, made no difference. The court found that the level of noise from dogs, customers and equipment audible to the claimants was unlawful even in a city. The judgment was reported in Het Parool and on AT5.

Hidde represented the lessor of a car rental company based in Curaçao, who claimed compensation from a lessee after the leased car was stolen. The Court of Appeal held that it had been provisionally proven that the lessor had warned the lessee at the time of signing the rental agreement about the risk of theft (and not taking out theft insurance), or at least that the lessee had deliberately waived theft insurance. The lessee was allowed to provide counter-evidence but failed to do so.