Short Reads

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

Dutch Supreme Court confirms case law on causation: roundup of two rec

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

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.

The "reversal" rule in the law of evidence

In its case law on causation, the Dutch Supreme Court has developed a law of evidence "rule" of its own: the so-called "reversal" rule. Under this rule, if certain requirements are met, a causal link between the non-performance or the unlawful act of the claimant and the damage of the defendant is deemed present unless the defendant makes a plausible case that the damage would also have arisen without his non-performance or unlawful act. The name "reversal" rule is therefore not entirely accurate, as this rule does not truly reverse the burden of proof of causation. It merely states a rebuttable presumption of the existence of a causal link. Nevertheless, "reversal" rule is how it is known. The requirements for the application of this rule are twofold. First, the defendant should have violated a norm which aims to protect against a "specific danger" of damage. Secondly, the claimant should make a plausible case – also if this is contested by the defendant – that in the case at hand the "(specific) danger" the norm aims to protect against has manifested itself.

Radio Dabanga and an alleged forced flight from Sudan

In its decision of 2 June 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1008), the Dutch Supreme Court reconfirmed this "reversal" rule and the requirements for its application. A journalist, previously working in Sudan, sued his employer, a foundation running Radio Dabanga, covering events in Sudan. Radio Dabanga operated from the Netherlands, broadcasting reports on the conflict in Darfur. These reports were secretly recorded by the journalist in Sudan and sent via the internet to the Radio Dabanga offices in the Netherlands. In the proceedings against the foundation, the journalist argued that he had been forced to flee Sudan after Sudanese security services had performed a raid on an NGO's office in Khartoum, Sudan's capital, in which the foundation had also opened a room. According to the journalist, the foundation had acted negligently by opening this room and keeping documents there. From these documents, the Sudanese security services could have deduced that the journalist worked for Radio Dabanga, the journalist argued.

"Reversal" rule not applicable

The Court of Appeal rejected the journalist's claim for damages. One of the reasons was that the journalist had not sufficiently substantiated a causal link between opening the room in the Khartoum offices and his alleged forced flight from Sudan. The Dutch Supreme Court upheld this decision, pointing to the fact that, among other things, the journalist did not give a sufficient factual explanation for the time lapse between the raid and his flight (being about two months). In addition, the Supreme Court rejected the journalist's complaint that the Court of Appeal should have applied the "reversal" rule. The Supreme Court did not elaborate on this rejection, but merely found that the second requirement for the application of the reversal had not been met. It had not been established that the specific danger, the alleged violated norm aims to protect against, being "danger of prosecution", had manifested itself. For that reason alone, the "reversal" rule was not applicable. The Supreme Court did not put into words which norm the foundation had allegedly violated in this case.

Scope of the "reversal" rule

From this restraint of the Dutch Supreme Court, one could perhaps deduce that it decided to stick to its existing case law on the "reversal" rule, limiting its application in fact to cases about the violation of established traffic or safety norms. Another interpretation could be that the Supreme Court was not willing to elaborate any further than strictly necessary on the scope of the "reversal" rule, because the facts in this case were simply too vague, as suggested in the Advocate-General's conclusion (ECLI:NL:PHA:2017:106). The alleged violated norm was a norm of unwritten law, to be defined in view of the facts. Therefore, if the facts are unclear, it is difficult to define the alleged violated norm.

Read about the Dutch Supreme Court's decision of 9 June 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1053) on the condicio sine qua non test in PART I of this blog.

Related news

07.08.2018 NL law
Boskalis v. Fugro: scope of a shareholder's right to put items on the agenda

Short Reads - Under Dutch law (section 114a of book 2 of the Dutch Civil Code), shareholders have the right to put items on the agenda of the general meeting. The question arises as to whether shareholders also have the right to force an (informal) vote in the general meeting on subjects which are not within their powers. A judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court of 20 April 2018 between Boskalis and Fugro focused on this question.

Read more

07.08.2018 NL law
Legislative proposal to protect trade secrets: update

Short Reads - On 5 July 2016, the EU Trade Secrets Directive came into effect (Directive 2016/943/EU). The directive intends to harmonise rules regarding the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) across all EU member states. As the directive is not directly applicable in the member states, each member state must enact national implementing legislation.

Read more

07.08.2018 NL law
Protection of listed companies against unsolicited takeovers, prevention of unwanted influences in the telecoms sector and protection of other vital sectors: latest developments

Short Reads - Following a recent series of (attempted) unsolicited takeovers by foreign bidders of Dutch listed companies, such as PostNL, Unilever and AkzoNobel, the protection of companies against unsolicited takeovers and the protection of vital sectors have received more attention in both the Netherlands and Europe.

Read more

31.07.2018
Can an SPV be misled before it exists?

Short Reads - Transactions are regularly structured through special purpose vehicles (SPVs). An SPV is often established at the end of the negotiations, just before signing the agreement. The other party to the agreement provides information and raises certain expectations during the negotiations. The individuals negotiating for the SPV do not necessarily become officers of the SPV once it is established.

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 – en cookieverklaring