In a case involving a dispute between the supplier of cultivation systems in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom and the grower who bought them, the judge has appointed two Dutch experts to evaluate the quality of two indoor strawberry farms. The grower is responsible for providing evidence in this case.
Both cultivation facilities are no longer operational and have been mostly dismantled. As a result, the experts must rely on the case file, stored equipment, and images provided by the grower for their evaluation. The judge has allowed the experts the option to state that they cannot make a judgment if the available information is insufficient.
An interim judgment in the case reveals that the judge seeks the experts' opinions on whether the materials, such as metal racks, pumps, and lighting, were appropriate for indoor strawberry cultivation in high humidity. Additionally, both parties disagree on whether the system is a standard NFT setup or a custom design specifically for the grower who purchased it.
The supplier suggested that experts evaluate another installation of their system at a different customer location in the Netherlands. However, the grower in this case did not agree to this proposal. The judge has left it to the experts to decide whether they wish to accept the supplier's offer for the benefit of their investigation in this specific case.
Ongoing legal dispute
The recent interim judgment in the case between Parus Europe and Smartkas is a new chapter in a long-standing legal dispute between Smartkas suppliers and the grower.
Parus Europe demands, in summary, payment of the outstanding balance of a final invoice for the British cultivation company. For the Dutch installation supplied by Parus Europe, everything has been paid by Smartkas.
Smartkas argues that no payment is still required and has filed a counterclaim seeking dissolution and compensation. It is crucial to demonstrate that the farms did not meet the terms of the agreement and exhibited various defects.
Supplier Artechno won a lawsuit against Smartkas this spring. The court of The Hague rejected all of Smartkas' claims in the case against Artechno and granted Artechno's claim.
This specific case has not yet reached a conclusion. Smartkas, which carries the burden of proof, must pay an advance for the costs that the experts will incur during their investigation. After the investigation, the judge intends to continue with the case in the autumn.