On 18 December 2025, the Limburg District Court issued a ruling that once again confirms that when qualifying an employment relationship, it is not the contractual label but the actual performance that is decisive. In this case, private and business relationships were completely intertwined: since 2017, the employee had been working for the company of which her husband was ultimately the director, via a private limited company structure. During an escalated divorce, the collaboration was terminated, with the employer taking the position that since June 2020 there was no longer an employment contract, but a contract for services. The employee thought otherwise. How did the Subdistrict Court rule?
The facts
The employee, who was still married to the director at the time, joined her husband's company in 2017. She performed structural work that was part of the regular business operations. She worked fixed hours and received a fixed monthly salary for this.
In June 2020, the contractual relationship was changed, at least on paper. The employer stated that the employment contract had been terminated and that from then on there would be a contract for services. On paper, the classification of the relationship changed, but in practice little changed.
The employee continued to perform the same work, within the same organisational context and to the same extent. No substantive changes were made to her duties. Nor did her position within the company change. Working hours and the number of hours worked remained the same.
Nor did the method of remuneration change significantly. The employee received a fixed basic salary. There were no expense claims per assignment or invoicing based on specific performance. She did not bear any entrepreneurial risk.
During the escalation of the marital relationship, the relationship between the parties within the company also deteriorated. The employer ultimately terminated the collaboration, invoking the existence of a contract for services and thus arguing that there was no employment contract.
It is also important to note that the employee was incapacitated for work after 2020. During that period, the employer reduced her pay by 30% and had her incapacity for work assessed by a company doctor. According to the Subdistrict Court, this was in line with the employment law regime of continued payment of wages in the event of illness.
The employee sought a declaration that an employment contract existed.
Legal framework
The subdistrict court assesses the case on the basis of Section 7:610 of the Dutch Civil Code and the criteria set out by the Supreme Court in, among other things, the Deliveroo judgment of 24 March 2023 (ECLI:NL:HR:2023:443). The decisive factors for the qualification are the rights and obligations agreed upon by the parties and how they actually implemented their legal relationship. All circumstances of the case must be weighed in relation to each other.
The Subdistrict Court leaves open the question of whether a contract for services was actually concluded in 2020. Even if that were the case, the decisive factor is that the actual performance did not change significantly thereafter.
No material change in work, wages and authority
The court finds that no relevant changes have been made to the work, working hours or organisational embedding since 2020. The fixed monthly remuneration without any obligation to submit expense claims indicates remuneration within the meaning of Section 7:610 of the Dutch Civil Code. A typical contract for services pursuant to Section 7:400 of the Dutch Civil Code is characterised by independence, invoicing and entrepreneurial risk.
The element of authority also remained. The employee performed her work within the company under the responsibility of the board. The fact that the director was her husband does not alter this.
Authority relationship within a marriage: legally relevant?
The fact that the parties were married raises the question of whether there can be a relationship of authority. In employment law, however, authority is not an emotional or relational concept, but a legal and organisational criterion. The question is whether the working party is embedded in the organisation and subject to authority and supervision.
Within family businesses and marital relationships, the actual exercise of authority may be less visible as long as the relationship is good. However, this does not mean that there is no legal relationship of authority. As soon as one party is a director and the other performs structural work within the company for a fixed remuneration, the element of authority may be satisfied.
In this case, there were no indications that the employee operated as an independent entrepreneur, was involved in policy-making or bore entrepreneurial risk. The Subdistrict Court therefore apparently saw no reason to consider the marriage as an obstacle to the assumption of authority.
The ruling thus confirms that even within a marriage or family business, a regular employment contract can exist with full protection under employment law.
Conduct during illness as confirmation of employer status
The Subdistrict Court considered the employer's conduct during the employee's incapacity for work to be of particular importance. The reduction in payment and the involvement of a company doctor are in line with Section 7:629 of the Dutch Civil Code and the reintegration obligations of Section 7:658a of the Dutch Civil Code. In the case of a contract for services, there is no legal obligation to continue paying wages in the event of illness and no mandatory reintegration framework.
The fact that the employer applied the employment law regime confirmed that the parties were in fact implementing an employment contract.
The subdistrict court therefore ruled that an employment contract existed.
Termination due to a disrupted employment relationship
After answering the question of qualification, the employment contract was terminated. Against the backdrop of a seriously escalated divorce, it is reasonable to conclude that there was a permanently disrupted employment relationship as referred to in Section 7:669(3)(g) of the Dutch Civil Code.
The case shows that a disrupted personal relationship within a company can lead to termination, but not without first correctly determining the qualification under employment law.
Read the full judgment here.
Conclusion
This ruling underlines that a purely written/contractual reclassification of an employment relationship, without any material change, has little legal weight. If the work, remuneration, organisational embedding and conduct in the event of illness remain unchanged, a court will quickly assume that the employment contract continues.
In family businesses and situations where private and business interests are intertwined, the legal structuring of the employment relationship deserves special attention. A change to a contract relationship requires actual independence, entrepreneurial risk and a different remuneration system.
The actual reality prevails over the contractual label.
SPEE Solicitors & Mediation advises and litigates in complex employment law issues, including qualification issues, disputes within family businesses and termination procedures in cases of permanently disrupted employment relationships.