De Bruijne cannot yet cheer in case for 50 million

For Farm Frites founder Gerrit de Bruijne it is still too early to cheer in the case in which it is involved against Loyens & Loeff. Loyens & Loeff is a firm that provides legal and tax advice, but in this case a claim of 15 million euros has been hanging over the head for 50 years.

The Bruine left in the XNUMXs with his wife to Curaçao on the advice of Loyens & Loeff. For example, he wanted to transfer his company to his children in a tax-efficient manner. When he returned two years later, however, the Tax and Customs Administration knocked on the door with a heavy assessment.

The Tax and Customs Administration points to the 'lasting relationship' that the plaintiff maintained with the Netherlands. De Bruijne, for example, remained general manager of Farm Frites, he was regularly in the Netherlands and he also retained a dentist and general practitioner in the Netherlands. The failed tax structure has cost De Bruijne 50 million euros, which he now claims from Loyens & Loeff.  

However, at the end of January, the Court of Rotterdam did not rule on the breach of contract. Loyens & Loeff now states that De Bruijne was himself to blame for the amount of damage. At some point he should have invoked error, so that he suffered much less damage.

The court sees it differently. It is true that De Bruijne had the 'post-contractual (and social) obligation' to take Loyens & Loeff's interests into account and thus not unnecessarily incur damage, but 'that obligation does not extend to the extent that (plaintiffs) were to choose a construction that reduced the damage that he could recover from Loeff et al., but that increased his non-recoverable damage,' according to the court.

In the case of an invocation of error, the latter could be the case, according to the judges. One of the factors that plays a role is the fact that the Tax and Customs Administration had stated in a letter that annulment of the tax structure set up by Loyens & Loeff would still lead to gift tax being owed, so that an appeal to error 'also entailed a new risk'. The conclusion of the court: 'All this makes the chance that the claim for error would lead to a favorable result was so small that (plaintiffs) did not have to do it for that reason, respectively, in view of what had already been initiated, didn't have to push through.'

The court has indicated that it will come to an 'integral assessment' of the dispute if the parties cannot reach an agreement among themselves. That assessment will 'not only relate to the professional errors, but also to any personal responsibility of (claimants)', the report said. court report.

© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.