beslag onder zichzelf te leggen

Tina Vonhof (X) Aug 11, 2014:

The way I understand it, the other party cannot initiate an attachment against himself (i.e., his own property). I would not call that a counterclaim, though, because there is no actual claim involved. But if there are two attachments against the same property, the matter needs to be decided by the court (with uncertain outcome), and that is what the original party wants to prevent.

Richard Purdom (asker) Aug 9, 2014:

@michael I have come up with
'nor is the client entitled to use attachment in respect of a counterclaim to our detriment.' but I don't know if that is correct. I had a look at
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/attachment too

Michael Beijer Aug 9, 2014:

Hi Tina, The reason I posted it as a Discussion entry is that I simply don't understand it. I looked at the JurLex entries, but can't make heads or tails of it. I might be able to figure it out if I gave it some thought/time, but I am currently in the middle of a job myself…

Richard Purdom (asker) Aug 9, 2014:

Because I appreciate Michael's help, but I cannot see an answer that fits the context and probably neither is he sure..

Tina Vonhof (X) Aug 9, 2014:

Why? Why do I regularly see answers posted in the discussion section?

Michael Beijer Aug 9, 2014:

See also: http://www.proz.com/kudoz/dutch_to_english/law_general/93226...

+

http://jure.nl/beslag onder zichzelf

Michael Beijer Aug 9, 2014:

JurLex: beslag onder zichzelf leggen =
attachment by a debtor in respect of a counterclaim against his creditor

betaling geschiedt zonder enige inhouding of verrekening en zonder dat opdrachtgever zijn betalingsverplichting door beslag onder zichzelf of anderszins mag blokkeren =
ABC will make payment in full without deduction or set-off and will not seek any order permitting retention of property as security pending the outcome of proceedings (for example beslag onder zichzelf)

;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*

I'll let someone else explain it. Just passing on what JurLex has to say about it.