The Bottom Line
- Self-help clauses are not a blank check: A contractual right to remove an obstruction does not grant unlimited power. Courts will intervene if such actions are deemed unreasonable, especially when they impact third-party property.
- History matters more than you think: A long-standing situation, such as an object being in place for over a decade, significantly weakens the argument that it suddenly constitutes an unacceptable hindrance requiring immediate, unilateral action.
- The courtroom is the proper venue: Taking matters into your own hands is a high-risk strategy. A Dutch court ordered a company to return a removed container at its own expense and imposed penalties, reinforcing that legal channels should be used to resolve property disputes.
The Details
The dispute arose between two neighboring businesses on a Dutch industrial estate. One company (the defendant) held a right of way (an easement) over the land of its neighbor (the claimant). This easement was crucial for accessing its warehouses, particularly with large trucks. The dispute centered on a shipping container on the claimant’s property, which the defendant claimed was obstructing this right of way. Citing a clause in the property deed that seemingly allowed them to remove any “hindrance,” the defendant hired a transport company and had the container removed. The claimant immediately sought an injunction to have the container returned.
The Rotterdam court looked beyond the literal text of the self-help clause in the property deed. While the clause did permit the removal of obstructions, the judge ruled that such a right cannot be exercised without limitation. The court found the defendant’s unilateral action to be a form of eigenrichting (taking the law into one’s own hands), which is heavily discouraged in the Dutch legal system. A critical factor in the court’s decision was the history of the situation: the container had been in the exact same spot for 12 years—long before the claimant even acquired the property—without any previous legal challenge. This history severely undermined the defendant’s claim that the container was an urgent and unacceptable obstruction.
Ultimately, the court sided with the claimant in this preliminary ruling. It ordered the defendant to return the container to its original location within seven days, at its own cost, under threat of a €1,000 daily penalty, up to a maximum of €25,000. The defendant was also forbidden from moving any of the claimant’s other property. This ruling serves as a powerful reminder that even when a contract appears to be on your side, resorting to forceful, unilateral actions is fraught with risk. The proper—and safer—course is to seek a judicial order to resolve the dispute.
Source
Rechtbank Rotterdam
