In this case, Schelstraete Lawyer’s client had brought her horse to the counter party’s yard for boarding and training in early 2020. Over a year later, the client terminated the boarding- and training contract and asked the counterparty to return her horse. However, the counterparty refused to deliver the horse. The counterparty submitted all kinds of claims, appealing to their right of retention. These claimed had never been brought up by the counterparty before. There was also no connection at all between the client’s request for the return of her horse and the claims by the counterparty.
As a result, Schelstraete Lawyers opened summary proceedings for the client, requesting that the horse be returned.
The court followed Schelstraete Lawyer’s argumentation. The court determined there were urgent interests on the part of the client, given the breach of her property rights by the counter party’s refusal to return the horse after the boarding- and training contract was terminated. The court also determined – after extensive debate and exchange of documents – that there was insufficient clarity about the existence of the counterparty’s claims. In addition, the court also judged that, contrary to the counterparty’s statements, the counter party had no claims against the client. The courts appointed the claims of the client, denying the counterparty’s claim for the refunding of boarding- and training expenses made after the termination of the contract.
Schelstraete Lawyer’s client was advised by mr. Irma Uwe-Ntukabumwe
Photo by Hippo Foto