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
Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement
On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.