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
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,