Ruling — the case continues in the late claimant's name

District Court (Leeuwarden)

Court decision · binding on the parties

In 30 seconds

A short interim ruling (in Dutch) on two housekeeping issues — whether the case was ever put on hold after claimant 6 died, and how long the claimants get to write their reply. It keeps the late claimant in the case and sets the next deadline.

Cheat sheet

After claimant 6 died, the claimants' lawyers asked in Nov 2023 and Jan 2024 to suspend the case for her; the registry then marked it as suspended.
The court found the lawyers had acted only for the deceased, not for her heirs, and only heirs can ask for a suspension.
So it declared both suspension filings invalid — the case was never suspended and has always continued partly in her name.
The claimants asked for 32 weeks to reply; the court gave 18, citing its duty under Art. 20 Rv (Code of Civil Procedure) to prevent undue delay.
The court asked for one combined reply to all defences, not a separate reply to each, and set the reply date for 11 June 2025.
All defendants left both questions to the court's judgment.

Key passages · underlined

Alleen de erfgenamen kunnen echter worden aangemerkt als belanghebbenden bij schorsing. De rechtbank zal daarom de akte beraad schorsing van 22 november 2023 en de akte na beraad schorsing van 10 januari 2024, voor zover deze aktes de schorsing van de procedure betreffen, ongeldig en zonder gevolg verklaren

IoJ translation — “However, only the heirs can be regarded as interested parties in a suspension. The court will therefore declare the deed of deliberation on suspension of 22 November 2023 and the deed after deliberation on suspension of 10 January 2024, insofar as these deeds concern the suspension of the proceedings, invalid and without effect”

Why it matters This is the operative reasoning — the suspension requests were void because they were not made for the heirs, so the late claimant stays in the case.Page 3 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy

Een termijn van 32 weken is tegen die achtergrond onnodig lang en toewijzing van het verzoek zou daarom leiden tot een onredelijke vertraging van het geding.

IoJ translation — “Against that background, a period of 32 weeks is unnecessarily long, and granting the request would therefore lead to an unreasonable delay of the proceedings.”

Why it matters The court cut the claimants' requested reply time almost in half, an early sign it wanted to keep the case moving.Page 3 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy

Aan de andere kant kan er niet aan voorbij worden gezien dat de kern van het geschil ten aanzien van alle gedaagden in essentie grotendeels dezelfde is.

IoJ translation — “On the other hand, it cannot be overlooked that the core of the dispute with regard to all defendants is in essence largely the same.”

Why it matters The court treats the dispute as essentially one case against all 17 defendants, which is why it wants a single combined reply.Page 3 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy

Read it · IoJ translationThe full document in English

NORTHERN NETHERLANDS DISTRICT COURT

Civil law · Place of hearing: Leeuwarden · Case number: C/17/190788 / HA ZA 23-172

Judgment of 5 February 2025 in the case of claimants 1 to 7 (claimant 6 deceased), represented by Mr P.W.H. Stassen and Mr A.G.W. van Kessel, against E.I. Hofstra, J.T. van Dissel, M.P.G. Koopmans, M. Rutte, S.A.M. Kaag, H.M. de Jonge, E.J. Kuipers, D.A.M.P.J. Gommers, W.B. Hoekstra, C. van Nieuwenhuizen, F. Sijbesma and the State of the Netherlands (Mr R.W. Veldhuis and Mr M.E.A. Möhring); A. Bourla (Mr D. Roessing and Ms Bredenoord-Spoek); G.J.M.T. van Cann and P.E. Jansen (Mr L. Broers and Mr R.H.W. Lamme); A.C. van der Voort-Kant (Mr A.H. Ekker); and W.H. Gates III (Mr W. Heemskerk), defendants, together called “Hofstra et al.”

1. The procedure

1.1. The further course of the procedure appears from: the docket decision of 11 December 2024; the claimants’ email of 18 December 2024; the court clerk’s letter of 19 December 2024; the claimants’ deed of 8 January 2025 on resumption, which also sets out their procedural wishes; and the responses of Hofstra et al. to that deed, as shown in the various docket messages.

1.2. Finally, judgment was scheduled.

2. The stay of proceedings concerning claimant 6

2.1. By a deed of 22 November 2023 (a deed to consider a stay, which also filed documents and addressed some procedural matters; “the deed to consider a stay”), the claimants’ lawyers asked for the proceedings concerning claimant 6 to be stayed because of her death. The lawyers stated in that deed that, after her death, they had contacted “the surviving relatives, more specifically the heirs”, and that they had no mandate from the heirs jointly to continue the proceedings on behalf of the estate. “The heirs need time to think about how the lawsuit should proceed”, the deed goes on. The deed asked for four weeks to state whether the proceedings would be resumed.

2.2. By a deed of 10 January 2024, after considering the stay, the claimants’ lawyers, as “lawyers of claimant 6”, asked for the proceedings concerning claimant 6 to be stayed. The docket then recorded that the proceedings concerning claimant 6 were stayed.

2.3. By docket decision of 11 December 2024, the court asked the claimants to state whether or not the heirs of claimant 6 wish to resume the proceedings. The claimants did so in their deed of 8 January 2025. They stated that they had not been able to establish who the legal successors or heirs of claimant 6 are, and that it must be assumed that there are several heirs. (The lawyers of) the claimants stated that they wish to continue the proceedings (also) in the name of claimant 6. Hofstra et al. left this question to the court’s judgment. The court considers as follows.

2.4. At first, the court assumed that the stay was requested on behalf of the heirs of claimant 6, who are the persons with an interest in a request for a stay. After all, the deed to consider a stay says there had been contact with the heirs and that they needed time to think about how the lawsuit should proceed. The deed of 8 January 2025 shows, however, that in asking for the stay the claimants’ lawyers apparently did not act on behalf of the heirs but only on behalf of the late claimant 6. Only the heirs, however, can be regarded as persons with an interest in a stay. The court will therefore declare the deed to consider a stay of 22 November 2023 and the deed after considering the stay of 10 January 2024, insofar as they concern the stay of the proceedings, invalid and without effect (compare Supreme Court 9 July 2005, ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AT3192). This means that the proceedings were never stayed and have always continued, also as regards the interlocutory issue, in the name of claimant 6 as well.

3. The deadline for the reply

3.1. The claimants asked for 32 weeks to file their reply. Hofstra et al. left this to the court’s judgment. The court considers that article 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure places on the court the duty to guard against unreasonable delay of the proceedings and, where necessary, to take measures to that end at a party’s request or of its own motion. Against that background, the court gives the claimants 18 weeks, not 32. On the one hand, the court takes into account that this is an extensive dispute with several parties, and that the reply must respond to several statements of defence. That in itself justifies a longer period than prescribed in article 2.5 of the National Rules of Procedure for civil summons cases in the district courts. On the other hand, it cannot be overlooked that the core of the dispute is in essence largely the same for all defendants. In addition, 8 weeks have already passed since the docket decision of 11 December 2024, in which it was decided that the proceedings would first continue in writing, and the content of the various statements of defence had been known to the claimants for a considerable time before that. Against that background, 32 weeks is unnecessarily long, and granting the request would therefore lead to an unreasonable delay of the proceedings.

3.2. From the request for an extended deadline as filed, the court infers that the claimants intend to file a separate reply to each statement of defence. The court expresses its preference for one reply responding to all the statements of defence, beginning with a general part that applies to all of them, followed by the specifics of each statement of defence.

4. The decision

The court

4.1. declares the deed to consider a stay of 22 November 2023 and the deed after considering the stay of 10 January 2024, insofar as these deeds concern the stay, invalid and without effect,

4.2. refers the case to the docket of 11 June 2025 for the reply.

This judgment was given by Mr C.M. Telman, Mr T.P. Hoekstra and Mr P. van Eijk and pronounced in public on 5 February 2025.

Interest of Justice translation from the Dutch original. The names of the claimants are left out, as in IoJ's other coverage. Only the Dutch text is authoritative. IoJ translation, not official; the Dutch original prevails.

Every defendant denies the claims, and the court has not ruled on them. Allegations are the claimants' pleaded positions, quoted as theirs. This is analysis and commentary, not legal advice. Interest of Justice is not a party to the case.