There is often a misconception about the reimbursement of legal costs when considering starting a procedure, when one party is involved in a procedure by another, both for franchisors and franchisees. A frequently heard assumption is that if the proceedings are successful, the costs of the proceedings will be reimbursed by the losing party. In practice, however, this is different. It is the case that the civil court, but also arbitrators when it concerns arbitration proceedings, have the option of issuing an order for costs. They can do so, but are not obliged to do so. Many franchise agreements contain an arbitration clause, which prescribes arbitration instead of the ordinary court. If judges or arbitrators order a party to pay the costs of the proceedings, this will mean that the unsuccessful party will have to reimburse the costs of the proceedings to the successful party. However, this does not mean that all costs incurred by the winning party will have to be reimbursed by the losing party. This is because the court must assume fixed fixed compensation for acts of, for example, the lawyer engaged. Those determined costs are often only a fraction of the total costs incurred. This is different if experts have also spoken in the procedure. In many cases, the invoices of the experts will qualify for full reimbursement. These costs can often be high. For example, if an accountant had to draw up a report to further substantiate the damage, you can imagine that the bill is not small.

In addition, a fee is paid to the court, the so-called court fee, or, in the case of arbitration proceedings, a deposit to the arbitration committee. These costs are also taken into account in the order for costs. In particular, the fees for conducting arbitration proceedings are high.

All in all, when a party has been ruled against by a judge or arbitrator, the pain can be even harder if, in addition to the conviction, an order for costs is also pronounced against that party. The amounts may be large, even if they do not cover the full costs of the (winning) other party.

In short, the winning party may be reimbursed part of the costs incurred, but will generally not be reimbursed for all costs incurred. In particular, the costs of legal assistance are only reimbursed to a limited extent, leaving aside the fact that there is no compensation whatsoever for the own hours that the parties have put into the procedure.
However, it is up to the judge or arbitrator to order one of the parties to pay the costs of the proceedings. The judge or arbitrator may see reasons not to award an order for costs.
It is therefore a good idea to take the costs of the proceedings into account when considering whether or not to initiate proceedings. When deciding whether to litigate, it is therefore wise to include a cost-benefit analysis in which the costs of a procedure should not be underestimated, certainly not in relation to the order for costs. In some cases, these factors can even block franchisees from going to court. Franchisors will weigh up whether the costs of a procedure outweigh the (possible) benefits.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor

In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee

Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement

On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor

The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?

On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a

Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee

On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held

Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act

The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top