Court lifts attachment: attachee concealed information

In a recent judgment of the District Court of Northern Netherlands of April 18, 2025, a seizure of a supplier's products was lifted. The interim relief judge ruled in summary proceedings that the garnishee had concealed essential information in the garnishment petition and for that reason had acted in violation of Section 21 Rv. In doing so, the garnishee had violated the so-called duty of truth. Attorney at law for seizure and enforcement Robert van Ewijk discusses the ruling.

Relevant facts in lifting attachment

From the judgment published by deLex, involves a dispute between Pharmylys and Ausnutria. Ausnutria is active in the production of baby milk powder. It does so both under its own brand and on behalf of third parties, including Pharmalys. Pharmalys develops, produces and distributes baby food (including Swisslac). Pharmalys also works with exclusive distributors in several countries. In Egypt, for example, this role is fulfilled by Eagles International Co.

A long-term partnership between Pharmalys, Eagles and Ausnutria has existed since 2013. Ausnutria produced Swisslac products for the Egyptian market, with Eagles acting as the exclusive distributor. Several agreements were signed in the following years. In 2021, Ausnutria was appointed as an exclusive supplier by Eagles, and a new distribution agreement was established in 2024.

Although Pharmalys preferred to transfer production to other companies within its group that same year, Eagles stuck with Ausnutria, in part because of concerns about financial stability in Egypt. Eventually, Pharmalys drew up a draft royalty agreement, but did not come to sign it.

Seizure and the summary proceedings to lift seizure

On February 13, 2025, Pharmalys placed a prejudgment attachment on Ausnutria's Swisslac products. The trigger was an alleged trademark infringement. Ausnutria subsequently launched a interim injunction to lift the attachment levied, with the core defense being that Pharmalys had concealed important information when requesting the attachment. This is in violation of article 21 Rv.

The preliminary injunction court agreed. In the attachment application, Pharmalys had given the impression that Ausnutria was only allowed to produce Swisslac products on an exceptional basis. However, the documents submitted by Ausnutria showed that there had already been a structural cooperation since 2013, with the consent of Pharmalys. Moreover, it was concealed that this cooperation had continued in 2023 and 2024, partly at the initiative of distributor Eagles.

According to the court, the fact that the draft agreement would never have become legally valid because Pharmalys did not sign it does not negate the obligation to include this information in the attachment notice. Moreover, the court stated that the attachment was unnecessary and unlawful and it was a abuse of right produces. The reason for the seizure levied, the court ruled, is only to put pressure on Ausnutria.

Court lifts attachment for breach of duty of truth

The court therefore rules:

“In view of the extent and seriousness of the breached obligation to inform the court fully and truthfully about all aspects of the case relevant to the assessment, the interim relief judge is of the opinion that there has been such a breach of the duty of truth that only one remedy appears to him to be appropriate and necessary: granting Ausnutria's primary claim for lifting the attachment.”

Attorney procedural law on lifting attachment

The conclusion is that the garnishee has withheld substantial information in the attachment petition in violation of Section 21 Rv. The attachment court was therefore incompletely and incorrectly informed. The court therefore granted the garnishee's claim to lift the attachment and ordered the garnishee to pay the legal costs.