Cassation and Civil Procedural Law
There are times that you have to go to court. Courts are, however, staffed by people, and a court handing down a judgment may be wrong. If either party disagrees with the decision on appeal, appeal in cassation at the Dutch Supreme Court is an option for particular cases. The Supreme Court may only quash a judgment if the lower court has not correctly applied the law or if the judgment has not been properly explained. The court of cassation does not re-examine the facts of a case, but only verifies the interpretation of the law; it is therefore not possible to put forward new facts or arguments. Hence, not every case can be submitted to the Supreme Court.
Prevention better than cure
In the realm of law too, prevention is better than cure. So it may be wise to involve a cassation attorney early in a case. A cassation attorney looks differently at a case and can, in close consultation with the attorney handling the case, help decide on the best approach, not least in terms of procedural law. That way, a possible appeal in cassation can be taken into account at an early stage.
Proceedings before the Supreme Court require a cassation attorney, who is qualified and has special expertise in that field. Kneppelhout combines expertise in all major legal fields with specific know-how in procedural law and the tricks of the cassation trade, so that you are assisted in the best possible way in legal proceedings.
What Kneppelhout can offer:
- Advice on appeal proceedings, possibly with a view to appeal in cassation
- Strategic advice on appeal proceedings
- 'Quick scan' or advice on cassation proceedings
- Civil-law cassation proceedings
- Judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court dated 19 February 2016 (X/Basil B.V.)
Scope of protection of unregistered community design and a penalty imposed by the court in the first instance. Can a higher court override an order given in the first instance, including a penalty, by imposing a similar order on a different legal basis, backdated to the original commencement date?
- Judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court dated 9 May 2014 (Botersloot C.V./ABN AMRO Bank N.V.)
During the redevelopment of an office building, loosely-bound sprayed asbestos was found after the earlier discovery of firmly-bound asbestos. The Buyer of the building only bases its claim on the discovery of the loosely-bound asbestos. Did the period during which a complaint should have been filed pursuant to Section 23 of Book 7 of the Dutch Civil Code commence after the earlier discovery of the firmly-bound asbestos, which the Buyer did not complain about, and does the failure to carry out a further inspection after the discovery of the firmly-bound asbestos preclude a claim on the basis of the discovery of loosely-bound asbestos?
- Judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court dated 20 December 2013 (X/Wendy's International Inc.)
Was the trademark Wendy’s filed in bad faith, did the Court of Appeal take into consideration all circumstances of the case in its assessment and is Wendy’s a trademark known to the general public?
- Judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court dated 12 April 2013 (Fikszo et al./Stokke et al.) and Judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court dated 22 February 2013 (H3 Products et al./Stokke et al.)
Do the high chairs marketed by H3 Products and Fikszo infringe the copyrights of Stokke regarding the Tripp Trapp high chair?
- Judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court dated 1 June 2012 (Esmilo B.V./Mediq Apotheken Beheer B.V.)
Do contravention of a provision under Dutch public law render a partnership agreement regarding international trade in pharmaceuticals invalid?
- Judgment of the District Court of Utrecht dated 16 May 2012 (Consumentenbond/Multisafe B.V.)
Is Multisafe, an insurance broker, acting unlawfully by demanding a monthly fee from consumers who have taken out insurance via the broker?