VvE director called a fraudster, swindler, cheat and liar is not allowed by judge

Two (former) directors of a VvE from Hillegom are quarreling. This quarrel is being fought out on the backs of the other owners in the building. Bills are hung up in the hall and letters and e-mails are sent around to the members. These aren't terse. Accusations of fraud and handling “Gestapo methods or Nazi practices” are not shunned. The victim of German nationality, according to the letter writer, would be out for “Power, Power, Power over the residents of our apartment and establishing a reign of terror”. The victim has had enough and goes to court. The judge ruled that a rectification must be sent to the entire association. Estate planning law attorney Robert van Ewijk Discusses the recent judgment of the District Court of The Hague (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:20291).

Arguing former VvE board member previously convicted of libel and slander

That verdict is not the first handed down between the wranglers. Previously, the defendant was ordered to refrain from making libelous and defamatory statements about the plaintiff. That was in December 2023. Then the preliminary injunction judge banned the man in shortg to make statements about:

“(a) criminal offenses or unlawful acts, (...) about defrauding, swindling, cheating, deceiving, (...) and (b) insults, (...) designations such as: criminal, fraudster, criminal fraudster, smear, liar, cheat, swindler, and designations related to conduct of the occupying forces during World War II.” 

No order of rectification in earlier judgment

However, the preliminary injunction judge did not find a rectification necessary at the time. There was not enough urgent interest for that. The court did find that the man had to be stopped immediately. In 2023 it considered:

“What is important here is that the accusations made by [defendant] to [plaintiff], whether or not those accusations are in any degree justified, in no way justify the coarseness of the accusations made. It is conjecture as to the cause of the persistence with which [defendant] has continued to repeat his taunts, but there is no trace of doubt as to when this conduct should end, namely, as soon as possible after service of this judgment.”

Defendant must quit from court, but is more persistent than thought

So no rectification, but a penalty. Hoping he would stop immediately. In vain. In September 2024, the man goes wrong again. He then writes to all members of the VvE in connection with a document submitted by his victim for an upcoming meeting:

“(...) [plaintiff's] piece exudes immeasurable rancor against everything and everyone. [plaintiff] relates everything to his own doings. Already very shortly after he moved in in 2016/2017, his absolute untrustworthiness became apparent and still is. (...)”

That plaintiff is then totally done with it. He is looked down upon by fellow residents and this is due to the hurtful remarks of the former VvE-manager. He therefore summons the former director again and demands that he rectify himself in front of (among others) the entire VvE.

Rectification after libelous and defamatory accusations in the CoE

This time there must be that rectification. The court holds that the statements are unlawful. The defendant is so rude that he cannot hide behind his freedom of speech. Its limits are well exceeded. The judge is, however, critical of the content of the rectification the plaintiff wants. For example, the defendant cannot be forced to apologize. In addition, the judge finds that the rectification should be circulated in a smaller circle. For example, the plaintiff also claimed that the rectification should be addressed to his daughter, the mayor of Hillegom and Lisse, to all former residents, to the Chamber of Commerce and the police. That part of the claim, too, is therefore dismissed.

Former director-VvE must post rectification

The rectification must be written in business-like terms and addressed to the current members of the CoE and to the former trustees of the CoE. The court wrote the rectification and stipulated in the judgment that the defendant must distribute it without accompanying letter. If the defendant does not do so within 7 days of the judgment, it must pay a penalty to the plaintiff.

Lawyer VvE in libel and slander case

In late 2023, the judge already denounced “the perseverance” with which the defendant proceeded. Apparently, it was justified, because despite the fines imposed, the man simply continued. We unfortunately see this more often in practice. Therefore, take timely contact up with a lawyer specialized in VvE law To prevent (further) escalation. Or to seek an injunction against making libelous and defamatory statements.