Jurisdiction of the subdistrict court judge in cases of miscarriage (II)
Court of Roermond
As indicated earlier on this website, different judges judge in different ways whether they are competent to take cognizance of a dispute in which both forecasting issues and rent play a role. Recently, the Court of Arnhem issued a judgment that is relevant, because the law seems to have been applied correctly. For the sake of brevity, I refer to my earlier article “Jurisdiction of the subdistrict court judge in cases of error”.
Recently, the court of Roermond, subdistrict sector, issued a similar ruling. The case in this matter is, briefly summarized, as follows. A franchisee has been provided with forecasts by his franchisor, which – as it turns out later – are not based on any research. Turnover lags significantly behind forecasts and the franchisee has to terminate operations prematurely due to lagging turnover. The franchisee starts proceedings and claims before the subdistrict court judge (among other things) annulment of the franchise agreement and the sublease agreement, including compensation. The franchisor defends himself by stating that the subdistrict court is not competent to take cognizance of this dispute, but that the ‘normal’ court must deal with this issue, because the rental element is only of minor importance.
However, the subdistrict court in Roermond is of the opinion that, because there is a lease element, the other claims are, as it were, ‘drawn along’ in its circle of jurisdiction. The subdistrict court is therefore indeed competent, despite the fact that there is also a substantial claim for compensation on the part of the franchisee.
The advantage of litigating before the subdistrict court is that the court fees are, in principle, lower than in the Civil sector. In general, litigation is also generally low-threshold, even by non-attorneys, which in certain cases can also be pleasant for a litigant. In short, the aforementioned development can be called favorable.
Mr JH Kolenbrander – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to coalbrander@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory
The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on the question whether a franchisor has a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.
Can a franchisee cohabit with a competing entrepreneur?
Can a franchisee violate a non-compete clause by cohabiting with someone who runs a competing business? On January 12, 2018, the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled
Not an exclusive catchment area, but still exclusivity for the franchisee
The judgment of the District Court of Noord-Holland dated 18 April 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2018:3268, ruled on the exclusivity area of a franchisee.
Supermarket letter – 23
AH may not reduce wages when taking over personnel from AH franchisees;
Termination or dissolution of the franchise agreement by the franchisee
In principle, franchise agreements can be terminated prematurely, for example by cancellation or dissolution. On 21 March 2018, the District Court of Overijssel ruled on ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2018:1335 on
Article in Entrance: “Sending mailings”
“Can I make a file of guests' email addresses because I occasionally want to inform them online about events, promotions and new dishes?”