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

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 NL law
Can an SPV be misled before it exists?

Articles - 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

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

12.07.2018 NL law
Voortgang wetsvoorstel Wet bescherming bedrijfsgeheimen

Short Reads - Op 5 juli 2016 is de Richtlijn bedrijfsgeheimen (2016/943/EU) in werking getreden. De richtlijn heeft tot doel de regels inzake bescherming van niet-openbaar gemaakte knowhow en bedrijfsinformatie (bedrijfsgeheimen) in de EU lidstaten te harmoniseren. De richtlijn moest voor 9 juni 2018 geïmplementeerd zijn in de Nederlandse wet- en regelgeving. Nederland heeft deze termijn niet gehaald.

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