The case dealt with the question whether the director personally has a joint and several liability in addition to a partnership to pay a lawyer's fees. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, VDL had sufficiently convincingly proven by the correspondence of the defendant that VDL has made the agreement it has set with the defendant. After all, VDL has (also) sent the invoices to the respondent and turned to the respondent in all correspondence. Respondent never objected to the € 25.000 claim until March 2009, i.e. for a period of almost 5 years, while the objection in 2009 - in view of the formulation of the protest - seems to have been partly prompted by the apparently unexpected negative outcome of the judicial proceedings against Sky. The claimant did not given a plausible reason for the absence of protest for a long time. The Court also considered that VDL and the respondent made the agreement. VDL could not be reasonably expected to accept an assignment from a company with serious financial problems without further security and without insisting on advance payments. Finally, the Court of Appeal considered it important that the respondent mentioned several times in his correspondence about "living expenses" for his family that must also be met and that stand in the way of fulfilling his obligations towards VDL. Since Padina did not have to pay living expenses for the family of the respondent, the Court of Appeal considered that the respondent could not speak as a private person who had obligations to VDL but as a director of the company.