Late and defective termination of lease, yet the lease still ended: lessons for entrepreneurs

No category, Tenancy Law

7 May 2026

Late and defective termination of lease, yet the lease still ended: lessons for entrepreneurs

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?

Terminating a lease often seems like a simple administrative act. Yet in practice this is exactly where things regularly go wrong, and that can prove costly for you as an entrepreneur. A small mistake is easily made: think of an email instead of a registered letter, or a termination notice sent too late. The question is how strictly you will be held to that legally, and whether it can genuinely leave you stuck with your lease.

A recent ruling by The Hague District Court (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:3042) shows that the rules on termination are strict, but that mistakes of this kind do not always have to be fatal.

The case in brief

A commercial property is leased for five years, with an end date of 30 September 2025. During that period, the tenant structurally pays late, sometimes with substantial arrears. For the landlord, this ultimately becomes the reason to terminate the lease. However, this is not done entirely in line with the agreed procedure. The termination notice is sent by email instead of by registered letter or bailiff’s writ, and moreover arrives one day late relative to the contractual notice period.

The tenant sees an opportunity in this and argues that the termination is invalid. According to him, this means the lease has been extended by five years. After the lease has ended, he remains in the property. The landlord then intervenes by changing the locks, after which the conflict ends up in summary proceedings. The key question: do these formal errors render the termination invalid, or did the lease end after all?

Improper method of termination

The tenant relies heavily on the formal defect: the termination was not sent by registered letter or bailiff’s writ, but by email. The court does not follow that defence. According to the court, the prescribed form primarily serves an evidentiary function. What matters is that it is clear that, and when, the termination reached the other party. Other forms of communication are therefore not automatically invalid.

In this case, it is decisive that the tenant responded directly to the termination by email. This establishes that he received the termination notice. The purpose of the formal requirement has therefore been met. The court thereby emphasises that it is not about the form as such, but about whether receipt has been established.

Late termination

Then the second error: the termination was given one day too late. In principle, that is legally risky, because this can normally lead to an extension of the lease.

Nevertheless, the court also looks at the context. The tenant initially accepted the termination and only later, during the proceedings, made an issue of the missed deadline.

Combined with the fact that it concerned only one day, the court does not consider it reasonable for the termination to fail on that ground. The termination therefore stands, and the lease ends as of 1 October 2025. At the same time, it is emphasised that this is not a fixed rule: in principle, a late termination simply remains late.

Poor payment behaviour

The decisive element in this case is the tenant’s payment behaviour. In 54 of the 60 months, the rent was paid late, with arrears sometimes running up to nine months.

In that situation, the court finds that relying on a formal defect (terminating one day too late) is no longer convincing. The tenant’s conduct weighs more heavily than the strict application of the notice-period rule, especially since the termination was initially also accepted.

The court further notes that this payment behaviour on its own would already have been sufficient to dissolve the lease.

Self-help

The landlord then still makes a mistake by changing the locks itself. That amounts to unlawful self-help and is not legally permitted without intervention by the court. Even if the lease has ended, an eviction must proceed through the proper legal channel. The court addresses this conduct, but nevertheless upholds the termination of the lease.

Practical advice

For landlords, this ruling shows that care in terminating a lease remains essential. Deadlines must be strictly monitored and receipt must be demonstrable. At the same time, it continues to apply that you may never evict a tenant yourself without a court judgment, even if you believe the lease has ended. So always act within the legal framework.

For tenants, the lesson is that relying on a formal defect or a small missed deadline offers no certainty, certainly not in the case of structurally poor payment behaviour. In such cases, the court looks at the overall picture, and a formal defence can lose its force. So conduct yourself as a good tenant throughout the term of the lease.

Do you need advice on entering into or terminating a lease, or on other tenancy law matters? The corporate lawyers of The Legal Company are happy to help. Please feel free to contact us via info@thelegalcompany.nl or call 020-3450152.

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.