Short Reads

Failure to appeal a judgment by one of the debtors with joint and several liability has clear-cut consequences in external relationships with other parties but uncertainty prevails in internal relationships between the debtors themselves

Failure to appeal a judgment by one of the debtors with joint and several liability has clear-cut consequences in external relationships with other parties but uncertainty prevails in internal relationships between the debtors themselves

Failure to appeal a judgment by one of the debtors with joint and several liability has clear-cut consequences in external relationships with other parties but uncertainty prevails in internal relationships between the debtors themselves

25.04.2016 NL law

On 18 December 2015 the Supreme Court decided (ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3637) that if debtors with joint and several liability are ordered to pay damages to a party in the first instance, the joint and several debtor that does not appeal the original decision cannot profit from a successful appeal brought by the other debtors with joint and several liability against that decision.

In this case, the District Court of Amsterdam ruled that the partners A,B and C of a law firm (in the form of a partnership) were jointly and severally liable for the damages suffered by one of their clients. This liability was the consequence of an attributable breach of contract by the law firm against that client.

The law firm and the lawyers B and C appealed the decision of the District Court of Amsterdam on the basis that the client was negligent (eigen schuld-verweer). The Court of Appeal of Amsterdam decided that the client had indeed been negligent and therefore needed to bear responsibility for part of the damages claimed. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal  thus reduced the client’s claim for damages by 70% and ordered the law firm and the lawyers B and C to pay the remaining 30% .

Lawyer A had not participated in the appeal proceedings. As a result, the original decision of the District Court of Amsterdam became final and binding as far as he was concerned.

The client subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court and argued, among other things, that the law firm and lawyers B and C no longer had an interest in the appeal proceedings as the decision of the District Court was already final and binding in respect of lawyer A. Because the liability established in that decision was a joint and several, this decision was – according to the client – also final and binding against the law firm and the lawyers B and C.

This raised two questions regarding the external liability of the law firm and lawyers A, B and C:

  1. If a judgment about the liability and the extent of damages against one of the jointly and severally liable debtors becomes final and binding, do the other joint and several debtors still have an interest in challenging that judgment?
  2. Does the more favourable judgment on appeal also apply to the debtor with joint and several liability that omitted to appeal the original judgment?

The Supreme Court decided that the fact that the judgment of the District Court of Amsterdam was final and irrevocable between the client and lawyer A, did not preclude the other defendants from filing an appeal to decide the extent of their own relationship with the plaintiff. The court confirmed that a debtor with joint and several liability has an independent relationship with the creditor and therefore has a legitimate interest in establishing the extent of this relationship independent of the other joint and several debtors .

The Supreme Court also decided that the more favourable judgment on appeal did not apply to the relationship between lawyer A and the plaintiff. The principle of final judgments is leading. As a result, the claim of the client to lawyer A is set at 100% of the damages incurred by the client and the claim of the client to the law firm, lawyer B and lawyer C is set at 30% . In this case lawyer A was liable for 100% of the damages to the client.

This raises the interesting question of what happens in the internal relationship between the law firm, lawyer A, B and C. Can lawyer A take action to recover the excess amount of 70% paid to the client against the partnership, lawyer B and lawyer C? The Supreme Court’s decision does not address this subject.

Under Dutch law, partners in a partnership are liable (draagplichtig) in equal proportions for claims that concern the partnership, unless the mutual agreement between the partners provides otherwise. However, in the absence of such arrangements,  what is the situation following  the Supreme Court’s decision?  On appeal, the  partnership itself was held  liable for 30% of the damages only. If the partnership has no assets then this 30% may be recovered from lawyer A, B and C. If you apply the principles under Dutch law in respect of the internal relationship between the partners, each lawyer is liable for one third of this 30%.

The initial decision of the District Court that was annulled in relation to the claim to the partnership, lawyer B and lawyer C, was maintained with regard to lawyer A. This means that 70% of the 100% awarded to the client under that District Court decision is a claim of the client against lawyer A only. However, that does not detract from the fact that the claim involved is one that concerns the partnership. This means that the partnership, including lawyer B and C, should in principle bear 70%.

Taking into account the circumstances of this case, and in particular the fact that the different court decisions were caused by lawyer A omitting to appeal against the District Court’s decision together with the other defendants, it is conceivable, that lawyer A alone will have to accept responsibility for this 70% because lawyer B and C could equally argue that even in the context of their internal relationship the 70% is imputable to lawyer A’s omission to appeal against the decision of the District Court.

To avoid possible conflicts and legal uncertainty regarding the internal recourse of a partnership and its partners,  when the partnership and/or the individual partners are held jointly and severally liable for claims that concern the partnership, it is advisable that all co-defendants appeal against any judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

The post Failure to appeal a judgment by one of the debtors with joint and several liability has clear-cut consequences in external relationships with other parties but uncertainty prevails in internal relationships between the debtors themselves is a post of www.stibbeblog.nl

 

Related news

11.04.2019 NL law
Double roles in attributing knowledge

Short Reads - The knowledge of a person who in fact runs a company can be attributed to the company if the sole director and shareholder is a 'straw man', the Supreme Court confirmed in a judgment of 29 March 2019. The rules by the Supreme Court are not revolutionary or even new. But circumstances essential for the attribution of knowledge are ignored. The double role played by the 'man in charge' raises questions about how to apply the rules as identified by the Supreme Court to the facts

Read more

28.03.2019 NL law
European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for consumers

Short Reads - On 26 March 2019 the European Parliament approved an amended version of the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers, following a debate on 25 March 2019. The Directive will become law once the Council and the European Parliament reach an agreement on the European Commission's proposal. The Council has not yet been able to adopt a position on the Directive, meaning that the Directive will most likely be considered again after the ­­­European elections in May 2019 by a different European Parliament

Read more

10.04.2019 NL law
Damage due to a defective driveway and the Dutch twenty year limitation period: When does limitation start in case of a continuous event that causes damage?

Short Reads - On 22 March 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:412) that the strict liability for buildings (opstalaansprakelijkheid) is not linked to a specific damaging act but to a damaging condition, as referred to in section 6:174 DCC. Therefore, there is no reason to regard a damaging act as an 'event that caused damage' as referred to in section 3:310 DCC concerning the limitation period for claims for damages.

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
European Court of Justice: actio pauliana is covered by jurisdiction rule of forum of contract. A judgment with foreseeable consequences?

Short Reads - Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor's possibilities of collecting the debt. In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party?

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring