Urgent interest in summary proceedings
In the event of legal disputes, it is possible to request the court to take provisional measures by means of summary proceedings. These provisional measures are often intended to prevent damage or damage from occurring. Since such interim measures can have far-reaching consequences, a claimant in summary proceedings is required to have an urgent interest in bringing his claims. This urgent interest is often considered to be present, since the plaintiff apparently sees the need to bring the claim before the court. However, the court always makes a separate consideration about this, which may be a reason for rejecting the claims. This is also apparent from the judgment of the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Overijssel dated 5 September 2014.
In these interlocutory proceedings, a contractual counterparty of the franchise organization DA Retailgroep BV demanded that DA comply with its agreements. As a result of the disputes between the franchisees of DA and the franchisor, which were also reported in the media, the plaintiff in preliminary relief proceedings feared that the activities of the franchise organization would be transferred to a new company. In this way, her counterpart would become an empty shell and she feared that the agreements would no longer be fulfilled. Proceedings were underway between the franchisees and the existing franchise organization in which the franchisees demanded that the franchisor be prohibited from transferring its activities to another company. The franchisor stated in these proceedings that transferring the activities to another company would be necessary for the continued existence of the formula.
The plaintiff in these preliminary relief proceedings did not wish to await the outcome of this reorganization and its consequences and has filed a preliminary injunction in advance for compliance with the agreements concluded with it. In these proceedings, however, DA’s franchise organization has argued that it complies with all its agreements and that the plaintiff in summary proceedings therefore has no urgent interest. The Court in preliminary relief proceedings followed DA’s defense on these grounds. Plaintiff in preliminary relief proceedings has rejected her claims since she would not have an urgent interest in this.
The preliminary relief judge did not want to anticipate the reorganization within DA’s franchise organization and the possible consequences, even though there is a real chance that, as a result of this reorganization, the consequences feared by the plaintiff will occur and that DA may be liable for damages as a result. become. The preliminary relief judge sees no reason to grant the claims in advance. Plaintiff in preliminary relief proceedings will therefore have to wait and see whether the agreement concluded with her will actually be fulfilled until the end of the term.
Mr T. Meijer – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to meijer@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Franchisor wrongly hinders internet sales by franchisee – dated September 19, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisor wrongly hinders internet sales by franchisee
If your franchisor is your competitor
Franchising aims at cooperation. The franchisor should assist the franchisee in achieving mutual benefit from the operation of the formula. Sometimes this gets out of balance.
Preferential right of purchase in lease does not apply – September 7, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin
Preferential right of purchase in a rental agreement does not apply
mr. Dolphijn writes chapter Franchising in Leidraad voor de Accountant
mr. Dolphijn writes chapter Franchising in Leidraad voor de Accountant
Distrifood: Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Emté franchisees in choosing a formula
Distrifood: Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Emté franchisees in choosing a formula
Transfer of business with ‘preferred supplier’ of franchisees
On 13 June 2017, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in interlocutory proceedings, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2144, on the question whether employees of a 'preferred supplier' of the