THE BOTTOM LINE
- Asset freezes are hard to lift: A Dutch court will not lift a prejudgment asset freeze unless the underlying claim is proven to be summarily unfounded. If the creditor has a plausible case, the freeze will likely be maintained until the main proceedings.
- Ambiguous contracts create significant risk: This case serves as a stark reminder that verbal or unclear agreements with freelancers, especially concerning performance-based versus fixed fees, can easily lead to costly disputes and disruptive legal measures like asset freezes.
- Courts balance interests: When deciding whether to lift a freeze, the court weighs the debtor’s harm against the creditor’s need for security. If the freeze isn’t causing catastrophic operational damage, the creditor’s interest in securing their potential claim will often prevail.
THE DETAILS
A dispute between a sports marketing agency, The Vectory, and a freelance consultant has resulted in a court-ordered freeze on the agency’s assets. The conflict stemmed from their payment arrangement. The freelancer claimed entitlement to a fixed monthly fee of €8,000, issuing invoices accordingly. The agency, however, argued that the payment was conditional on the freelancer generating at least double that amount in new business—a condition they claim was never met. After months of non-payment, the freelancer obtained a prejudgment attachment, freezing funds held by the agency’s bank and key clients. The Vectory initiated summary proceedings to have this freeze lifted, arguing the freelancer’s claim was baseless.
The Amsterdam District Court applied the stringent Dutch legal test for lifting such an attachment: it must be summarily apparent that the claim is unfounded. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that both parties had presented plausible arguments. The agency pointed to emails suggesting payment was tied to cash flow and performance, as well as witness statements supporting their position. On the other hand, the freelancer produced communications in which the agency seemed to acknowledge the outstanding invoices as a debt. Given the conflicting evidence, the court concluded it could not dismiss the freelancer’s claim as clearly baseless in a summary proceeding, leaving the final decision to a full trial on the merits.
Ultimately, the court’s decision also rested on a balance of interests. The Vectory failed to demonstrate that the asset freeze was causing irreparable harm to its business operations, especially since some of the targeted accounts held limited funds. In contrast, lifting the freeze would eliminate the freelancer’s security for a substantial claim. The court found that the freelancer’s interest in securing potential payment outweighed the agency’s current inconvenience. While the freeze was upheld, the court did reduce the total amount secured to reflect a recent partial payment made by the agency.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court of Amsterdam)
