THE THREE STAGES OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE DUTCH CARIBBEAN

General observations regarding adversarial proceedings

All adversarial proceedings in the Dutch Caribbean shall be initiated by means of a petition to the Court of First Instance of the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba. Claims will be denied or rejected (afgewezen) by the Court if ruled that they are unfounded. If a claim is denied for reasons other than the merits of the claim then the claimant’s complaint will be declared non-admissible (niet-ontvankelijk). In exceptional cases the petition will be declared void and in some cases the court may rule that it is not competent to hear the case.

An appeal can …
Read the rest »

17
Apr 2010
CATEGORY

Legal

COMMENTS No Comments

ORDINARY ADVERSARIAL VERSUS SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS IN THE DUTCH CARIBBEAN

The court only considers the key issues

According to Article 110 and 111 of the Netherlands Antilles Code of Civil Proceedings (NACCP), all adversarial proceedings shall be initiated by means of a petition to the Court of First Instance. Proceedings so initiated are ordinary proceedings, unless the petitioner expressly opts for preliminary relief proceedings (kort geding) under article 226 NACCP. This article provides that in urgent cases which require an immediate decision the plaintiff may request a provisional decision (beslissing bij voorraad).

Article 229 NACCP provides that a provisional decision rendered as a result of this special type of proceeding …
Read the rest »

10
Apr 2010
CATEGORY

Legal

COMMENTS No Comments

OBITER DICTUM OR NOT?

Litigating twice on the same matter is not allowed

The Netherlands Antilles Code of Civil Procedure prevents parties from litigating twice on the same legal issue. The principle that a final judgment of a competent court is conclusive upon the parties in any subsequent litigation involving the same cause of action is known as ‘res judicata’. A Dutch court case is described below illustrating this principle: Utrecht District Court of 19 March 2009 (NJF 2009/291).

In initial litigation, the claimant had sought payment of certain contractual penalties. The Court of Appeals rejected the claim on two separate grounds, the first …
Read the rest »

27
Mar 2010
CATEGORY

Legal

COMMENTS No Comments