Short Reads

Judgement beyond the ambit of the legal dispute

Judgement beyond the ambit of the legal dispute

Judgement beyond the ambit of the legal dispute

02.10.2017 NL law

In its judgment of 14 July 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1357 the Supreme Court decided that the pleadings did not provide sufficient basis for the decision of the Court of Appeal that the contractor's claim was also based on joint and several liability of the alleged client. Moreover, the pleadings provided no evidence that the alleged client acknowledged that the contractor considered the alleged client jointly and severally liable.

On the basis of the judgment of 15 April 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:663 the Supreme Court decided:

"The judge is not free to base his decision on grounds or defences which could be concluded from facts and circumstances turned out in the case, but are not founded on his or her grounds or defences by the relevant party. This would have an adverse effect on the other party's right to defend himself properly (HR 15 April 2016 ECLI:NL:HR:2016:663)."

Background of the case

This case is about whether the Court of Appeal had supplemented the factual basis of the claim in breach of article 24 Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). In other words, whether the Court of Appeal had gone beyond the ambit of the legal dispute.

Article 24 CCP provides that a judge has to examine a case and reach his decision on the basis put forward by the parties in their claim, defence or request. The judge is not free to supplement that basis with facts and circumstances.

In this case, the contractor had performed some administrative work based on an oral contract for services for companies in which the alleged client was involved. The contractor received payments for the administrative work. With the permission of the court in preliminary relief proceedings the contractor levied a prejudgment attachment on bank balances and two islands in Aalsmeer.

In the present proceedings the contractor claimed an order for payment of EUR 9,000 for the administrative work the contractor had performed. The alleged client invoked the defence that it was not him who was the client, but his company. The alleged client lodged a counterclaim and sought the lifting of the prejudgment attachments.

The Court allowed the contractor's claim for payment of EUR 9,000 and rejected the alleged client's counterclaim.

On appeal the alleged client changed his claim and requested a declaratory decision that the contractor had acted wrongfully by selling (executoriaal verkopen) the attached property and that the contractor was liable for the damage suffered or to be suffered.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal confirmed the Court's judgment and rejected the alleged client's changed claim.

According to the Court of Appeal the contractors position/claim implied that a contract had been concluded between the contractor and the alleged client. Under the terms of the contract the alleged client was jointly and severally liable along with the company for the payments for the administrative work. With reference to the pleadings and a letter from the contractor's lawyer the Court of Appeal decided that the alleged client must have been aware that the contractor claimed joint and several liability.

Supreme Court

In the cassation proceedings the alleged client argued that the Court of Appeal had supplemented the factual basis of the claim in breach of article 24 CCP. The Court of Appeal had gone beyond the ambit of the legal dispute. This argument succeeded. According to the Supreme Court the pleadings did not provide sufficient basis for the decision of the Court of Appeal that the contractor's claim was also based on joint and several liability of the alleged client. Moreover the pleadings provided no evidence that the alleged client acknowledged that the contractor considered him jointly and severally liable.

In short

Firstly, this case shows that it is very important to set out all facts and circumstances for the basis of the claim in the pleadings. In this decision, the Supreme Court pointed out again that the judge is not free to base his decision on grounds or defences which could be concluded from facts and circumstances turned out in the case, but are not founded on his or her grounds or defences by the relevant party.

Secondly, this case shows that it is important to verify who the real client is if you accept some work based on a contract for services for a company in which a natural person is involved.

Team

Related news

04.06.2019 NL law
Dutch Supreme Court clarifies evidentiary rules concerning signatures and signed documents

Short Reads - In two recent decisions, the Dutch Supreme Court has clarified the evidentiary power of signed documents. If the signatory unambiguously denies that the signature on the document is his or hers or claims that another party has tampered with the signature (for instance, through forgery or copying a signature from one document and pasting it in another), it is up to the party invoking the signed document to prove the signature's authenticity (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:572).

Read more

24.05.2019 NL law
European regulatory initiatives for online platforms and search engines

Short Reads - As part of the digital economy, the rise of online platforms and search engines raises all kinds of legal questions. For example, do bicycle couriers qualify as employees who are entitled to ordinary labour law protections? Or should they be considered self-employed (see our Stibbe website on this issue)? The rise of online platforms also triggers more general legal questions on the relationship between online platforms and their users. Importantly, the European Union is becoming increasingly active in this field.

Read more

03.06.2019 NL law
Toerekening van kennis van groepsvennootschappen

Articles - In de praktijk doet zich vaak de vraag voor of kennis die aanwezig is binnen de ene vennootschap kan worden toegerekend aan een andere vennootschap binnen hetzelfde concern. In dit artikel verkent Branda Katan zowel de dogmatische grondslag als de praktische toepassing van een dergelijke toerekening. Zij concludeert dat het ‘Babbel-criterium’ (heeft in de gegeven omstandigheden de kennis X in het maatschappelijk verkeer te gelden als kennis van Y?) geschikt is voor het toerekenen van kennis in concernverband.

Read more

21.05.2019 BE law
The International Comparative Legal Guide to Corporate Recovery & Insolvency 2019 - Belgian chapter

Articles - This Guide covers common issues in corporate recovery and insolvency - including issues that arise when a company is in financial difficulties, insolvency procedures, cross-border issues - in 30 jurisdictions. Pieter Wouters and Paul Van der Putten of Stibbe Brussels' Litigation department contributed to the Belgian chapter of the ICLG.

Read more

28.05.2019 NL law
Dutch court: insufficient substantiation? No follow-on cartel damages action

Short Reads - Dutch courts are forcing claimants (including claims vehicles) to be well-prepared before initiating follow-on actions. The Amsterdam District Court in the Dutch trucks cartel follow-on proceedings recently ruled that claimants – specifically CDC, STCC, Chapelton, K&D c.s. and STEF c.s. – had insufficiently substantiated their claims. These claimants now have until 18 September 2019 to provide sufficient facts regarding transactions that – according to them – were affected by the cartel. Preparation should thus be key for cartel damages actions.

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Arbitral award obligating Ecuador to prevent enforcement of USD 8.6 billion order does not violate public order

Short Reads - Due to environmental damage as a result of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon, oil company Chevron was ordered to pay USD 8.6 billion to Ecuadorian citizens. In order to claim release of liability, Chevron and Texaco initiated arbitration proceedings against Ecuador. Arbitral awards ordered Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment, leaving the Ecuadorian plaintiffs temporarily unable to enforce their judgment. According to the Supreme Court (12 April 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:565), these arbitral awards did however not violate public order.

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