If you think a settlement agreement is a standard document, you are at risk

Employment Law

1 July 2026

If you think a settlement agreement is a standard document, you are at risk

Stelt u zich eens voor: u werkt al jaren met dezelfde zelfstandige. Hij stuurt facturen, factureert btw en heeft een eigen kvk-nummer. Toch krijgt u in 2026 ineens vragen van de Belastingdienst over de aard van uw samenwerking. Hoe heeft het zo ver kunnen komen?

The settlement agreement (VSO) is still too often treated in employment law practice as a “standard document”. As a simple formality. A finalisation of what has in fact already been decided. That idea is not only incorrect, but also enormously risky.

A recent ruling by the Amsterdam District Court (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:5378) shows why.

Facts

After a reorganisation, a Technical Asset Manager at a facility management company was declared redundant and immediately released from work duties.

On 30 May 2025, the parties concluded a settlement agreement: the employment would end on 1 October 2025, with a substantial termination payment agreed (approximately €50,000) and a signing bonus. Nothing unusual so far. After signing the agreement, the employee transferred more than 4,000 files to her personal OneDrive, in several sessions but mainly on 2 July 2025. An American “Insider Risk Team” of the employer raised the alarm. A conversation followed on 22 July 2025, and the employee was summarily dismissed that same day.

The employee sought annulment of the summary dismissal and performance of the settlement agreement. The employer tried to annul the agreement on the grounds of mistake (article 6:228 of the Dutch Civil Code) and claimed more than €176,000 in damages. The subdistrict court ruled that the summary dismissal had been validly given, but nevertheless ordered the employer to partially perform the settlement agreement.

The key lesson

The employer tried to annul the settlement agreement on the grounds that it had been mistaken. The court rejected this: the bulk of the transferred files ended up on the employee’s OneDrive after the settlement agreement had been signed. Mistake cannot be based on a purely future circumstance. This follows explicitly from article 6:228 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code.

In other words: the employer had rightly summarily dismissed the employee, but could not entirely circumvent payment of the termination payment via the mistake route. The court did consider it unacceptable, by standards of reasonableness and fairness, for the employee to claim continued payment of wages and the transition payment – those claims therefore failed. But the employer still had to pay the termination payment (based on the reorganisation, not on the employment itself).

A settlement agreement is bespoke work

This ruling touches on a pain point in practice. Many settlement agreements contain standard provisions, but lack crucial scenario coverage.

In particular: no explicit resolutive condition for summary dismissal before the end date, and no clear arrangement for serious culpable conduct after signing.

Without such provisions, a legal vacuum arises in which the court must fall back on general doctrines such as mistake and reasonableness and fairness, with unpredictable outcomes.

The practical lesson for employers: include an explicit provision in settlement agreements regulating what happens if the employee engages in serious culpable conduct after signing. Think of a clause stipulating that payments lapse in the event of serious culpable conduct in the period between signing and the end date of the employment. Without such a provision, you are left empty-handed before the court if things go wrong after signing.

This ruling shows how vulnerable an exit process can be if the rules of the game are not properly laid down in advance. SMEs generally have less legal firepower than large companies and can less easily afford a poorly documented dismissal or a defectively drafted settlement agreement. Invest in legal support in good time as soon as you see signs of possible irregularities, and before you send the dismissal letter.

Mistake offers no safety net

This ruling also shows: mistake is not a repair mechanism for poorly contracted risks.

If the relevant risk only arises after the contract is concluded, article 6:228 of the Dutch Civil Code simply does not apply. This means that as an employer you must contractually anticipate future conduct by the employee.

If you fail to do so, you can — as in this case — be confronted with a situation in which the summary dismissal is valid, but the agreed termination payment nevertheless remains owed.

Contracting for scenarios, not assumptions

This ruling underlines the importance of careful contracting in settlement agreements. In that context, it is advisable to include in the settlement agreement at least: an explicit resolutive or suspensive condition for summary dismissal before the end date; a clear link between payments and the ground for termination; an arrangement for (serious) culpable conduct after signing; and possibly alignment with a social plan in which conditions are explicitly worked out.

In addition, an appeal to the parties’ intention can be positioned more strongly if that intention is also explicitly anchored in the text of the settlement agreement.

Those who fail to do so contract implicitly, and may pay for it explicitly.

Do you have questions about a settlement agreement or an upcoming dismissal process (such as a reorganisation) within your organisation? The corporate lawyers of The Legal Company are happy to help you further. Contact The Legal Company via info@thelegalcompany.nl or call 020-3450152.

Blog by our employment law expert Bente Brouwer LL.M.

De afgelopen jaren stonden in het teken van de Wet VBAR, het wetsvoorstel dat een einde moest maken aan onduidelijkheid over de zzp’er. Het kabinet heeft delen van dat voorstel inmiddels geschrapt. Op het eerste gezicht is dat goed nieuws: minder regels, minder administratieve last. Maar in de praktijk blijven dezelfde toetsen overeind.

“De inhoud van de samenwerking is leidend, niet wat er op papier staat.”

De Belastingdienst handhaaft sinds 1 januari 2025 weer actief op schijnzelfstandigheid. En recente uitspraken van de Hoge Raad bevestigen dat rechters strikt toetsen of er sprake is van ondergeschiktheid en gezagsverhouding.

Voor uw praktijk betekent dit drie dingen. Een: leg de samenwerking duidelijk vast, met aandacht voor de inhoud. Twee: voorkom dat een zzp’er feitelijk werkt als werknemer. Drie: wees voorbereid op een controle, en weet hoe u de relatie kunt herzien als dat moet.

Heeft u vragen over uw concrete situatie? Wij sparren dagelijks met opdrachtgevers over hun zzp-relaties. Vraag een offerte op of bekijk onze Legal Safe abonnementen.