“A while ago I was retained by a client, who was one of the top salesmen of the care hire company he worked for. After the arrival of a new manager, the company started to perform less well, and the relations deteriorated, resulting in an instant dismissal for my client, justified by the contention that he had developed competitive activities during his employment. There was no noncompetition clause. A veritable roller coaster of actions was started up, partly pertaining to the proof. Article 843a of the Code of Civil Procedure concerns the so-called seizure of evidence. In this case, this regarded information in the client's computer. There were simultaneous or as the case may be, successive interlocutory proceedings (during which we demanded reinstatement); Subdistrict Court termination proceedings; a claim for a sizeable severance pay; a claim to inspect all seized documents (on a hard disk, handed to a 'sequestrator') ); an appeal against the judgment of the Subdistrict Court; proceedings on the merits; new Subdistrict Court proceedings regarding the role of the sequestrator and an appeal before the Court of Appeal against the Subdistrict Court ruling, in which the opposing party demanded a repeal of the severance pay, after which the Court of Appeal finally pronounced a favourable judgment in the Appeal against the ruling in the action on the merits. Any layman would lose track of the situation in no time at all, but to me, as a lawyer, this was a case that allowed me to pull out all the legal stops. Don't get me wrong: I am well aware that, in principle, nobody is looking for proceedings, but in this case, our drive was the fact that the opposing party was looking to litigate until my client was ruined, no matter the cost. It is, therefore, extremely satisfying that this series of proceedings, a most unusual one at that, in the end turned out well for my client.”