Urgent interest in summary proceedings
In the event of legal disputes, it is possible to request the court to take provisional measures by means of summary proceedings. These provisional measures are often intended to prevent damage or damage from occurring. Since such interim measures can have far-reaching consequences, a claimant in summary proceedings is required to have an urgent interest in bringing his claims. This urgent interest is often considered to be present, since the plaintiff apparently sees the need to bring the claim before the court. However, the court always makes a separate consideration about this, which may be a reason for rejecting the claims. This is also apparent from the judgment of the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Overijssel dated 5 September 2014.
In these interlocutory proceedings, a contractual counterparty of the franchise organization DA Retailgroep BV demanded that DA comply with its agreements. As a result of the disputes between the franchisees of DA and the franchisor, which were also reported in the media, the plaintiff in preliminary relief proceedings feared that the activities of the franchise organization would be transferred to a new company. In this way, her counterpart would become an empty shell and she feared that the agreements would no longer be fulfilled. Proceedings were underway between the franchisees and the existing franchise organization in which the franchisees demanded that the franchisor be prohibited from transferring its activities to another company. The franchisor stated in these proceedings that transferring the activities to another company would be necessary for the continued existence of the formula.
The plaintiff in these preliminary relief proceedings did not wish to await the outcome of this reorganization and its consequences and has filed a preliminary injunction in advance for compliance with the agreements concluded with it. In these proceedings, however, DA’s franchise organization has argued that it complies with all its agreements and that the plaintiff in summary proceedings therefore has no urgent interest. The Court in preliminary relief proceedings followed DA’s defense on these grounds. Plaintiff in preliminary relief proceedings has rejected her claims since she would not have an urgent interest in this.
The preliminary relief judge did not want to anticipate the reorganization within DA’s franchise organization and the possible consequences, even though there is a real chance that, as a result of this reorganization, the consequences feared by the plaintiff will occur and that DA may be liable for damages as a result. become. The preliminary relief judge sees no reason to grant the claims in advance. Plaintiff in preliminary relief proceedings will therefore have to wait and see whether the agreement concluded with her will actually be fulfilled until the end of the term.
Mr T. Meijer – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to meijer@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Infringement of non-competition clause, where is the limit?
In this matter, a former freelancer of massage parlor Doctor Feelgood started his own massage parlor under the name Feelgood-store.
Research into numbers of franchise procedures
We recently published a brief survey of franchise jurisprudence over the past six years on the website.
Violation of duty of care affects exoneration
In a dispute about an appeal to an exoneration clause in the franchise agreement by the franchisor, it was considered that the nature of the franchise agreement should be taken into account
Supermarket letter – 5
Acquisition of a supermarket location by terminating the lease at the expense of the sitting tenant is allowed by the Supreme Court.
Acquisition of a supermarket location by terminating the lease at the expense of the sitting tenant is allowed by the Supreme Court
On 25 April 2014, the Supreme Court confirmed for the second time that the waiting period of three years for termination of the rental agreement for retail space due to urgent personal use after the purchase of the property
Unauthorized unilateral collective fee increase by the franchisor
In an important decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 23 April 2014, the question was whether a franchisor was allowed to implement an increase in a contribution.