ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:8825, Rechtbank Amsterdam, 05-11-2025, NCC C/13/771959
Rechtbank Amsterdam — Uitspraak 
Datum: 2025-11-05 00:00:00.000000
Rechtsgebied: Civiel recht

Samenvatting: Judgment on a motion to include third parties based on article 118 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.
        Defendant in the motion (BBP) is owned by Mr X and Mr Y (together: “the Founders”), each through their respective holding companies. Claimant in the motion (CJ) wishes to pursue a claim against the Founders on the same or comparable grounds as the grounds on which the counterclaim against BBP is based in the main proceedings. Upon request, BBP has withdrawn its objections against the Founders becoming parties in these proceedings. Furthermore, the Founders have accepted the Court’s jurisdiction and that English will be the language of the proceedings. Therefore, the Court grants the motion.

judgment
    AMSTERDAM DISTRICT COURT
    
    
      Netherlands Commercial Court 
      NCC District Court
    
    
    
      Case number: NCC C/13/771959
    
    
    
      
        Interim Judgment on a motion
      
    
    
    
      
        5 November 2025
      
    
    
    
      
        Claimant in the original claim,
      
      
        Defendant in the counterclaim,
      
      
        Defendant in the motion:
      
      
        Batavia Biopharma B.V.,
      Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands,
      hereinafter referred to as: ‘BBP’ or ‘Claimant’,
      represented by R.Q. Potter, M. Dudink and S. Pals, lawyers (De Breij),
    
    
    
      
        Defendant in the original claim,
      
      
        Claimant in the counterclaim,
      
      
        Claimant in the motion:
      
      
        CJ Cheiljedang Corporation,
      
      Seoul, South Korea,
      hereinafter referred to as ‘CJ’ or ‘Defendant’,
      represented by A.W.P. Marsman, lawyer (De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek). 
    
    
    
    
      Counsel are members of the Netherlands Bar Association. The term “lawyer” above has the meaning as defined in Article 3.1.1 Netherlands Commercial Court Rules (NCCR).
    
    
  
  
    
      1Procedural history
    
    
      1.1.
      BBP filed its writ of summons, dated 1 July 2025, on 1 July 2025. On 9 July 2025, CJ filed its writ of anticipation.
      
    
    
      1.2.
      CJ filed its statement of defence and its counterclaim on 24 September 2025.
      
    
    
      1.3.
      
        CJ’s statement of defence also included a motion to allow CJ to summon 
        
          [Mr X] and [Mr Y] (together: the Founders) to appear in the proceedings on the basis of Article 118 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP).
      
      
    
    
      1.4.
      On 15 October 2025 BBP filed a statement of defence on the motion to involve third parties based on article 118 DCCP.
      
      
    
    
      1.5.
      Pursuant to the Court’s directions dated 20 October 2025, on 27 October 2025 CJ submitted a written acceptance of the NCC’s jurisdiction signed by both [Mr X] and [Mr Y] .
      
    
    
      1.6.
      
        On 27 October 2025, the Court gave further directions in connection with the 
        defense by BBP against the motion.
      
      
    
    
      1.7.
      On 27 October 2025, BBP withdrew its remaining objections against the motion.
      
    
  
  
    
      2The motion
    
      2.1.
      CJ requests the Court to issue a judgment, to the extent permitted by law enforceable notwithstanding any remedy, [to] allow CJ to summon [Mr X] with residence at [adress X] and [Mr Y] with residence at [adress Y] to appear in the proceedings on the basis of Article 118 of the DCCP.
      
    
    
      2.2.
      CJ has substantiated its request as follows. BBP has breached multiple provisions of the Shareholders Agreement, which was entered into by, amongst other parties, BBP and CJ. Under the Shareholders Agreement, BBP is not only obligated to ensure its own compliance with the Shareholders Agreement but also to secure the compliance of the Founders. BBP has not met this obligation as the Founders have breached the Shareholders Agreement on multiple grounds. BBP’s claim against CJ in the main proceedings should therefore be dismissed and CJ’s counterclaim against BBP should be awarded. On the basis that the Founders have breached the Shareholders Agreement themselves, CJ wishes to also file a claim against the Founders. It would serve the principles of process economy and efficiency if this claim would be dealt with simultaneously with the main proceedings.
      
    
    
      2.3.
      Initially, BBP argued that the motion should be rejected. On 27 October 2025, BBP has, however, withdrawn its objections.
      
    
  
  
    
      3Discussion
    
      3.1.
      Under Article 118 DCCP it is possible to involve third parties in (pending) proceedings between a claimant and a defendant. It may be warranted to involve a third party in the proceedings on this basis in order to file a claim against that party, provided this claim is related to the main proceedings and the procedural economy is served if these claims are addressed simultaneously in the same proceedings (Dutch Supreme Court 20 March 2020, ECLI:NL:HR:2020:485). 
      
    
    
      3.2.
      
        The Court understands that CJ wishes to pursue a claim against the Founders on the same or comparable grounds as the grounds on which the counterclaim against BBP is based. Especially now that BBP has withdrawn its objections against the Founders becoming involved in these proceedings and given the fact that the Founders have accepted the Court’s jurisdiction and that English will be the language of the proceedings, the Court will grant the motion, on the following conditions:
        A. CJ will summon the Founders to appear in these proceedings by 26 November 2025 at 10:00 hrs., in accordance with the formalities set forth in Articles 118 through 120 DCCP and;
        B. in its initiating document CJ has to specify and substantiate its claim against the Founders in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 111 DCCP and especially Article 111 paragraph 2 subparagraph d. DDCP. 
      
      
    
    
      3.3.
      The costs in these interim proceedings will be compensated so that each party will bear its own costs. 
      
    
  
  
    
      4Conclusion
    THE COURT:
    
    
      4.1.
      allows CJ to summon [Mr X] with residence at [adress X] and [Mr Y] with residence at [adress Y] to appear in the proceedings on the basis of Article 118 of the DCCP;
      
    
    
      4.2.
      orders CJ in connection with what is decided in 4.1 above to fully comply with the conditions set out in 3.2. above;
      
    
    
      4.3.
      compensates the costs in these interim proceedings so that each party will bear its own costs.
      
      
      
        Done by C.W.D. Bom, Judge, assisted by A. Hut, Clerk of the Court.
        Issued in public on 5 November 2025.
      
      
      
      
      
        
          APPROVED FOR DISTRIBUTION IN eNCC
        
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
        
          SIGNATURE PAGE 1 OF 2
        
      
      
      
      
      
        C.W.D. BOM
        							(JUDGE)
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
        
          SIGNATURE PAGE 2 OF 2
        
      
      
      
      
      
      
        							CLERK OF THE COURT