Waiver of non-competition clause by franchisee
On 22 June 2015, the Interim Relief Judge of the District Court of The Hague (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7353) penalized a franchisee because he brought a second interim injunction about the same proceedings, namely whether the non-compete clause was valid.
A franchisor had terminated the franchise agreement prematurely because the franchisee would disrupt the cooperation. The franchisee had also demanded compliance with the franchise agreement in preliminary relief proceedings. In addition, the franchisee had also claimed that it could continue to serve its existing relations and demanded that the franchisor be prohibited from having direct or indirect contact with the relations of the franchisee. The franchisor pointed to the non-competition clause contractually agreed with the franchisee. The franchisee then argued that it could not invoke the post-non-compete clause because it had already transferred the rights under the franchise agreement to another party. The preliminary relief judge had rejected the franchisee’s claim in that interlocutory proceedings, partly because the case was not suitable to be assessed in interlocutory proceedings.
In the present proceedings, the franchisee is claiming suspension and cancellation of the post-non-compete clause. In the present proceedings, the preliminary relief judge rules that the franchisee has not made it sufficiently plausible that there are new facts and/or circumstances that do make it possible to reach a judgment in this matter in preliminary relief proceedings. The conclusion is that the present claims of the franchisee in interlocutory proceedings are also not allowable.
The franchisor’s legal costs must be fully reimbursed by the franchisee due to abuse of procedural law and are estimated at € 4,750, of which € 4,137 in lawyer’s salary, plus 6% office costs and VAT, and € 613 in court fees.
This judgment illustrates that abuse of procedural law can be punished with a hefty cost order by way of compensation for damage to the other party for having to litigate needlessly.
Mr AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.