Hele goede ervaring goed contact snel reacties terug mail,telefonisch goed bereikbaar Meerdere zaken gewonnen dankzei mnr appelman Raad mnr Appelman aan iedereen aan
14:30 31 Aug 17
Zeer kundig geholpen door dhr. Appelman. Reageert erg vlot op e-mails waardoor alles soepel is verlopen.
12:53 07 Jul 17
My attorney invaluable in securing my visitation to my dual-national daughter. He and the other staff of Advocatenkantoor Appelman was there every step of the way during this very long process. Best advice I can give is to listen to your attorney and have confidence in their experience. Johan de Haan is a Champ and I am grateful for his service and friendship.
23:30 22 Jun 12
I must add Mr. De Haan, that after your total fail I asked a second opinion from another Advocat and they indeed declared that by significant professional errors you failed to defence me thus I gave the case to another Advocat. But you already had done the job and court had nno trust anymore in my case. An Advocat who admits that his client knew about the wrong roof constuction must never accept to defent a client if you don't not believe in his innocent. But you just do not care. For money you are able to destroy anybody. Indeed, the initial claim from the other Party was 12.000 euros and after 4 years, thanks to you, uncapable and unprofessional Advocat you are, I had to pay a total of 25.000 euros for this case. I didn't know anything about the wrong construction of the roof, as you declare stupidly here, but you manage all in manner that the whole process goes wrong and against me although it was an easy case to win having the good evidences which unfortunately and incontiently. you never used, You were, even , sitting during sittings in the court watching them without even interrogating people in my favor. You are a good for nothing and normally you owe to me to reimburse me this this money.
Een werknemer die een WhatsApp bericht had verstuurd met een foto van een grafsteen met daarop de naam van zijn leidinggevende mocht niet om die reden ontslagen worden. De rechtbank overwoog dat de grenzen van het fatsoen weliswaar waren overschreden maar dat de uiting niet als een bedreiging kan worden aangemerkt. ECLI: NL:RBOVE: 2015:2231 (Rechtspraak.nl)