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
HEMA sentenced to suspend e-commerce contribution to franchisees
HEMA is in conflict with its franchisees about the contribution to e-commerce costs. HEMA believes that the existing scheme from 1997 is outdated.
Error or deception in the conclusion of the franchise agreement
A franchisee who regrets after entering into a franchise agreement may believe that before or at the conclusion of the franchise agreement by the franchisor ...
Supermarket letter – 21
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that