Court of Arnhem<\/b><\/p>\n
The assessment of disputes about a (sub)lease agreement is assigned by law to the specialist sub-district court, while disputes about a franchise agreement are, in principle, assessed by the ‘normal’ (civil) court. In franchising, it is very common that, in addition to the conclusion of a franchise agreement, a (sub)lease agreement is also concluded between the franchisor and the franchisee. Which court has jurisdiction if the franchisee invokes the voidability of both agreements?<\/p>\n
As discussed earlier on this website, the answer to this question seems to be easily answered on the basis of the law. However, it appears from the various case law that can be found on this subject that this apparent simplicity is apparently apparent and that different courts look at this matter in different ways.<\/p>\n
The Court of Arnhem recently issued a ruling that appears to be based directly on the law and therefore promotes legal certainty. The case, briefly summarized, is as follows. In the ‘normal’ civil court, the franchisor cs not only claim a franchise fee from a franchisee, but also rent payments under a (sub)lease agreement. The franchisee defends himself by stating that he has erred, for which reason, in his view, both the franchise agreement and the rental agreement should be nullified. The court is of the opinion that, now that there is a concurrence of claims that also relate to a (sub)lease agreement, a subdistrict court judge should assess the case. Referral will follow.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mr JH Kolenbrander \u2013 Franchise lawyer<\/p>\n