Jurisdiction of the subdistrict court judge in cases of miscarriage (II)
Court of Roermond
As indicated earlier on this website, different judges judge in different ways whether they are competent to take cognizance of a dispute in which both forecasting issues and rent play a role. Recently, the Court of Arnhem issued a judgment that is relevant, because the law seems to have been applied correctly. For the sake of brevity, I refer to my earlier article “Jurisdiction of the subdistrict court judge in cases of error”.
Recently, the court of Roermond, subdistrict sector, issued a similar ruling. The case in this matter is, briefly summarized, as follows. A franchisee has been provided with forecasts by his franchisor, which – as it turns out later – are not based on any research. Turnover lags significantly behind forecasts and the franchisee has to terminate operations prematurely due to lagging turnover. The franchisee starts proceedings and claims before the subdistrict court judge (among other things) annulment of the franchise agreement and the sublease agreement, including compensation. The franchisor defends himself by stating that the subdistrict court is not competent to take cognizance of this dispute, but that the ‘normal’ court must deal with this issue, because the rental element is only of minor importance.
However, the subdistrict court in Roermond is of the opinion that, because there is a lease element, the other claims are, as it were, ‘drawn along’ in its circle of jurisdiction. The subdistrict court is therefore indeed competent, despite the fact that there is also a substantial claim for compensation on the part of the franchisee.
The advantage of litigating before the subdistrict court is that the court fees are, in principle, lower than in the Civil sector. In general, litigation is also generally low-threshold, even by non-attorneys, which in certain cases can also be pleasant for a litigant. In short, the aforementioned development can be called favorable.
Mr JH Kolenbrander – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to coalbrander@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee
Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor
In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee