Short Reads

Dutch Supreme Court confirms case law on causation: roundup of two recent cases (PART I)

Dutch Supreme Court confirms case law on causation: roundup of two recent cases (PART I)

05.07.2017 NL law

In its decisions of 2 June 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1008) and 9 June 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1053), the Dutch Supreme Court reconfirmed its case law on causation, the condicio sine qua non test and the so-called "reversal" rule in the law of evidence pertaining to this test. Although strictly speaking, these decisions might not bring much news, they show that carrying out the condicio sine qua non test is not always straightforward. In addition, these decisions show the importance of clearly keeping in mind the facts and norms constituting the unlawfulness or non-performance at hand.

Liability law, causation and the condicio sine qua non test

One of the requirements for establishing liability in probably any system of liability law is the requirement of causation. It would, after all, be pointless for such a system to impose liability upon a party for damage that he has not caused. But whether damage has actually been caused by the non-performance or unlawful act of the defendant is not always easy to determine. As with many other jurisdictions, Dutch liability law relies on the condicio sine qua non or "but for" test. This test entails imagining a hypothetical (or "counterfactual") situation without the non-performance or unlawful act of the defendant. If it is reasonably plausible that in this hypothetical situation the claimant would not have suffered the damage for which he seeks compensation, this damage is deemed to have been caused by the non-performance or unlawful act of the defendant, at least in a legal sense.

"Emptying" a company and the recovery of claim

While this might seem clear in theory, in practice the condicio sine qua non test is not always straightforward. Hofstad sued Rixtel, arguing that Rixtel had acted unlawfully by disposing of all of the assets of De Provinciale, an insurance intermediary company formerly owned by Hofstad, including its insurance portfolio. Although Rixtel had bought the portfolio, it had not yet paid the purchase price to De Provinciale. As a result of this "emptying" of De Provinciale, Hofstad argued, it had not been able to recover a claim it had against De Provinciale regarding an overdraft facility. Rixtel contested the causal link between the "emptying" of De Provinciale and Hofstad's inability to recover its claim and convinced the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal decided that Hofstad had not sufficiently substantiated that in the event Rixtel had not disposed of all assets, De Provinciale would have made sufficient profit allowing Hofstad to recover its claim. The Court of Appeal pointed to the fact that the solvency and equity position of De Provinciale had already deteriorated, to the extent that there was a possibility that bankruptcy proceedings would be issued.

Imagining the hypothetical situation

The Court of Appeal overlooked that in the hypothetical situation, without the unlawful act of Rixtel, De Provinciale would have had more assets than in the factual situation, regardless of its profits. Either De Provinciale would still own its insurance portfolio (if Rixtel had not bought the insurance portfolio at all) or De Provinciale would have received cash in return (if Rixtel had bought the insurance portfolio and paid the purchase price). In its decision of 9 June 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1053), the Supreme Court therefore decided that the Court of Appeal should have gone a step further in its estimation of what would have happened hypothetically. It should have also taken into account whether – in the event that De Provinciale would not have been able to make sufficient profits – Hofstad would have been able to seek recovery (i) from the insurance portfolio, or (ii) from the purchase price if Rixtel had paid for the portfolio (to be continued).

Read about the Dutch Supreme Court's decision of 2 June 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1008) on the "reversal" rule in the law of evidence in PART II of this blog.

Related news

23.02.2018 NL law
Can acts and statements from an unauthorised representative qualify as acknowledgment of liability and interrupt a limitation period?

Short Reads - On 26 January 2018, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2018:108) about the interruption of the limitation period for a claim for damages. The key element in this case was whether the acts and statements of an insurer and a loss adjuster qualified as an acknowledgement of liability and, if so, whether this acknowledgement could be attributed to the liable party

Read more

05.02.2018 NL law
Wetsvoorstel aanvullende maatregelen accountantsorganisaties: alsnog overgangsrecht bij verlengde termijn voor tuchtklachten

Short Reads - In onze Alert van 20 juli 2017 hebben wij aandacht besteed aan het op 10 februari 2017 ingediende wetsvoorstel aanvullende maatregelen accountantsorganisaties ("Wetsvoorstel"). Een van de voorgestelde maatregelen in het Wetsvoorstel is het laten vervallen van de thans in art. 22 van de Wet tuchtrechtspraak accountants ("Wtra") opgenomen "subjectieve vervaltermijn".

Read more

21.02.2018 NL law
Termination clauses in agreements and Dutch standards of reasonableness and fairness

Short Reads - How can a party terminate an agreement? With the exception of certain specific agreements (i.e. employment or rent), the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) does not provide rules on termination as such. Whether and under what conditions a party is entitled to terminate an agreement is determined by the agreement itself and the general standards of reasonableness and fairness ("redelijkheid en billijkheid") in Article 6:248 DCC. In its decision of 2 February 2018 (ECLI:NL:HR:2018:141), the Dutch Supreme Court further developed its case law on the subject matter.

Read more

08.02.2018 NL law
Closing-down sale: turnover tax incurred as a consequence of goods being sold to consumers by way of summary execution does not qualify as estate debt (boedelschuld)

Short Reads - The Amsterdam District Court requested a preliminary ruling with regard to turnover tax incurred as a consequence of a sale taking place by way of summary execution (Amsterdam District Court 5 July 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:4726, answered by the Supreme Court on 15 December 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3149)

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy