vonnis in incident

10:28 Jan 21, 2016 

Yes, I agree: it's interesting - and not yet conclusive.

10:19 Jan 21, 2016 

I'm just going to leave this one hanging for the time being, as I am not satisfied I understand it fully, and don't have the time to go into it in more detail at the moment due to various looming deadlines.

17:24 Jan 16, 2016 

See pp. 74-75 of http://tinyurl.com/jssd8nu. Not sure if this is at all helpful/relevant, but decided to post it anyway.

15:59 Jan 13, 2016 

It may be different in UK law but in US ( http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Interlocutory ... ) and to the extent that a procedural issue is a question of law, Jurlex is corroborated while interlocutory remains correct.

11:41 Jan 13, 2016 

If I change "in incident" to "in het incident", JurLex gives:.


vonnis in het incident = decision on the procedural issue

bij incidenteel vonnis van Uw Rechtbank = in a decision on the procedural issue of this Court
bij interlocutoir vonnis = by an interlocutory judgment
antwoord in het incident = reply in a procedural issue

eis in het incident = interim application; preliminary application; interim action
but also:
eis in het incident = claim on a procedural matter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *
"interlocutory judgement" still makes most sense to me, in my context, but I am a little confused by JurLex’s "decision on the procedural issue" eee

11:26 Jan 13, 2016 

I was actually using "interlocutory judgement" myself, so am happy to get some corroboration.

I considered mentioning what I had arrived at, but whenever I do that, several of our esteemed colleagues here (I will name no names) complain, in the form of "If you already know the answer, why ask the question!?". Likewise, if I do not say what I have arrived at so far, yet others complain (again, no names). In any case, thanks a lot!

00:28 Jan 13, 2016 

why don't you consider interlocutory order?