In August 2017 Schelstraete Equine Lawyers (SEL) needed to file a summary proceeding before the court of Zeeland-West-Brabant to fight the inaccurate seizure of the horses of Mr. van der Endt, a client from SEL. Mr. van der Endt returned home from his holiday, only to find out that his two horses had been seized by a bailiff. Mr. van der Endt as well as SEL contacted the bailiff to inform her that Mr. van der Endt was the owner of the horses and substantiated the ownership with documents. Despite this substantiated claim the bailiff refused to release the seized horses. SEL won the case but the bailiff filed an appeal against the Court decisions. The questions is why. She did not file a complaint against the decision of the Court regarding the lift of the seizure on the horses, but only complaint against the fact that Mr. van der Endt filed a summary proceeding against the bailiff office (and her as a bailiff) next to the seizures of the horses as well. The Court of Appeal judged that the bailiff office did not have a legal interest in filing the appeal against the verdict of the Court and rejected – after pleadings of both lawyers – the appeal of the bailiff office. The bailiff office was convicted in the procedural costs of Mr. van der Endt again. Another victory for Mr. van der Endt in this case. SEL is now busy preparing a lawsuit against the seizures of the horses as well as the non-cooperative bailiff to claim damages.”
In August 2017 Schelstraete Equine Lawyers (SEL) needed to file a summary proceeding before the court of Zeeland-West-Brabant to fight the inaccurate seizure of the horses of Mr. van der Endt, a client from SEL. Mr. van der Endt returned home from his holiday, only to find out that his two horses had been seized by a bailiff. Mr. van der Endt as well as SEL contacted the bailiff to inform her that Mr. van der Endt was the owner of the horses and substantiated the ownership with documents. Despite this substantiated claim the bailiff refused to release the seized horses. SEL won the case but the bailiff filed an appeal against the Court decisions. The questions is why. She did not file a complaint against the decision of the Court regarding the lift of the seizure on the horses, but only complaint against the fact that Mr. van der Endt filed a summary proceeding against the bailiff office (and her as a bailiff) next to the seizures of the horses as well. The Court of Appeal judged that the bailiff office did not have a legal interest in filing the appeal against the verdict of the Court and rejected – after pleadings of both lawyers – the appeal of the bailiff office. The bailiff office was convicted in the procedural costs of Mr. van der Endt again. Another victory for Mr. van der Endt in this case. SEL is now busy preparing a lawsuit against the seizures of the horses as well as the non-cooperative bailiff to claim damages.”