Supreme Court Litigation

Some cases are so complex or fundamental that they have to be taken to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court proceedings are conducted by specialist lawyers, known in the Netherlands as ‘cassation lawyers’. Houthoff has one of the largest and most prestigious Supreme Court practices in the country. Our Supreme Court lawyers are fully integrated into our other practice groups and sector teams. They understand the context behind disputes and are committed to finding the best solution. They combine outstanding strategic advice with an in-depth knowledge of the areas our clients operate in. The success of our Supreme Court team is internationally recognised and our lawyers are called upon for advice by other law firms, companies and government bodies.

Houthoff’s Supreme Court Team has secured countless ground-breaking judgments from the Supreme Court over the years.

Examples of our expertise

appeal against the expropriation of the Hertogin Hedwige Polder (ongoing case);
successful appeal in the Meavita case;
successful appeal on liability for the dike breach at Wilnis;
various proceedings related to the expropriation of SNS;
various proceedings on financing on behalf of ING;
successful defence of the composition plan relating to Lehman Brothers;
successful defence of the bankruptcy of Dutch financing subsidiaries of the Brazilian telecom giant Oi

Highlighted Matters
Secured a win for various aviation industry parties, including 18 airlines, in challenging the Dutch State's proposed downsizing measures for Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, suddenly reducing the maximum number of flights from 500,000 to 460,000 in the next year. The Supreme Court ruled that the Dutch State must complete the 'balanced approach procedure' under the EU Noise Regulation before implementing such measures, overturning a previous decision by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal.
Highlighted Matters
Represented RAB in a successful Supreme Court Appeal against a judgment of the Amsterdam court of appeal on the claim of a former adviser / party to the development of a hotel in Amsterdam.
Highlighted Matters
Represented Wells in the Wells v Bariven case in proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reinstated the arbitral award after it was set aside for alleged corruption.
Highlighted Matters
Represented CBRE in proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's judgment which found that CBRE Investors does not have to offer properties to Bijenkorf.
Highlighted Matters
Assisted a taxpayer in civil proceedings of principle against the Dutch state before the Supreme Court, in which the state unsuccessfully tried to recover the costs of a tax audit from the taxpayer.
Highlighted Matters
Advised Vi Holding, the largest shareholder of aluminum multinational Vimetco N.V. on several proceedings in the Netherlands and the UK relating to a transaction with regard to a significant minority stake in Vimetco. Disputes arose with respect to certain obligations under this transaction, and also a third party initiated proceedings in both the UK and the Netherlands following it.
Highlighted Matters
Advised Aurelius, through its investment vehicle Capricorn, in lodging several claims in the Netherlands, relating to, among others, (a) the voidance of several intercompany transactions of the Oi Group which have been to the detriment of the group's creditors and (b) to prevent the ailing Brazilian parent company from borrowing any more money from one its Dutch subsidiaries.
Highlighted Matters
The Unbundling Act requires that the integrated energy companies unbundle their network companies, and forbids privatization thereof. Three large energy companies argued that the act infringes on the right to free movement of capital and therefore does not bind them. The Dutch Supreme Court found that the Unbundling Act is in line with the right to free movement of capital. The Supreme Court reasons that the objectives of the Unbundling Act are ‘important reasons in the public interest’ and that the entailing restrictions.

Click here for the judgement of the Supreme Court.
Highlighted Matters
On the basis of the appeal of Houthoff, the Supreme Court quashed on material and unprecidented formal grounds the decision of the Enterprise Chamber in the Meavita-case. The Enterprise Chamber's decision was rendered after the by far most costly investigation so far. It must fully reconsider the whole case.