Anyone who suspects that the other party is withholding relevant financial documents has a legal remedy to ensure that these are disclosed. A recent ruling by the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal demonstrates the extent of that remedy and, just as importantly, where its limits lie.
The case
The parties are involved in proceedings concerning the determination of child maintenance and spousal maintenance. The man runs a coffee shop as a sole trader. The woman suspects that he has undeclared income that does not appear in his annual accounts or tax returns. In an earlier ruling, the Court of Appeal had instructed her to prove that suspicion.
In order to fulfil that requirement to adduce evidence, the wife is seeking, pursuant to Article 194 of the Code of Civil Procedure, access to a series of the husband’s financial documents: annual accounts and income tax returns for 2024 and 2025, bank statements for all business and private accounts covering the last twelve months, cash records, debit card transactions, invoices from the card terminal in the coffee shop, and the full Bibob assessment commissioned by the local authority. The man objects and argues, amongst other things, that the claim amounts to a ‘fishing expedition’, that he is not obliged to account for his income and expenditure, and that the woman must bear the costs of providing the information.
The legal issue
The central question is whether the woman is entitled, under Article 194 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to inspect the documents claimed, and if so, to what extent. Article 194(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure grants a party to a legal relationship the right to inspect, obtain a copy of or an extract from information held by the other party, provided that the party has a sufficient interest in doing so. Article 195(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure grants the court the power to order the opposing party to comply. There are two exceptions: the right of access lapses if the opposing party has a right to refuse disclosure or if there are compelling reasons against it.
A further question is whether the man’s defence – that the woman has failed to define her claim sufficiently and is thus embarking on a ‘fishing expedition’ – can block the application.
The judgement
The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal partially upheld the claim by order of 30 July 2026 ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:4987
Annual accounts and tax returns
The Court of Appeal grants the claim. The woman has a sufficient interest: the Rules of Procedure for Petition Proceedings in Family Matters before Courts of Appeal already stipulate that a self-employed person must submit documents providing insight into their financial situation. No right to refuse to disclose information or other compelling reason has been established.
Bank statements
The man’s ‘fishing expedition’ defence is unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal considers that the woman could not have known precisely how many bank accounts the man holds or at which banks they are held. That lack of knowledge is precisely the reason why she was unable to specify her claim further, and it is also precisely what the order for evidence relates to. The Court of Appeal orders the production of all bank statements, both business and private, covering the period from 1 January 2025 to 1 January 2026. The limitation to twelve months is a factor in the finding that the measure is proportionate.
Cash accounts and invoicing
The Court of Appeal dismisses these claims. The cash accounts offer no added value because, by definition, the alleged undeclared cash receipts will not be included therein. The debit card transactions will be evident from the bank statements of the business accounts that are already to be provided.
Card terminal
The Court of Appeal rejects the claim for access to the amounts withdrawn by customers via the card terminal. The Court considers it plausible that the man has no insight into this, partly in view of customers’ privacy. The Court of Appeal does, however, grant access to the hire agreement and the invoices from the debit card terminal lessor.
Bibob advice
The investigation had not yet been completed at the time of the hearing. For that reason alone, the Court of Appeal dismisses the claim. A supplementary request for the underlying documents of the Bibob investigation is rejected as having been submitted too late and insufficiently substantiated.
Confidentiality and costs
The man requested that the proceedings be kept confidential, subject to a fine, and sought reimbursement of the costs of providing information. The Court of Appeal rejected the fine: the proceedings are already taking place behind closed doors, which renders the documents confidential by operation of law. The costs of the annual accounts and bank statements are to be borne by the man, as he should have submitted these documents earlier in the proceedings. Only the costs of the debit card terminal invoices are to be borne by the woman.
Implications for practice
This ruling was handed down in a family law context, but the Court of Appeal’s reasoning under Article 194 of the Code of Civil Procedure is more broadly applicable. The provision is set out in general procedural law and also applies in civil disputes between companies and institutions. Any shareholder, creditor or contracting party who suspects that the other party is withholding financial information may claim access to such information along the same lines.
Two elements of this ruling are of practical relevance in this regard. Firstly: the claim need not be defined down to the last detail if the lack of specificity is precisely the result of the other party’s information advantage. The ‘fishing expedition’ defence will then not hold water, provided that the court can itself limit the scope of the access sought, for example by setting a time period. Secondly: anyone who is required to produce documents in proceedings and fails to do so shall bear the costs of any subsequent compulsory production themselves.
The order also makes clear the limits of Article 194 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Information which the opposing party demonstrably does not possess falls outside the scope of the order. A claim submitted too late in the proceedings or insufficiently substantiated will be met with procedural objections.
What you can do
If you suspect that the opposing party’s financial flows are not correct or that relevant documents are being withheld, it is advisable to assess at an early stage whether Article 194 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a useful tool. The timing of such a claim is crucial: filing it too late may lead to its dismissal, regardless of the merits of the case.
The Corporate & Commercial Litigation team at TeekensKarstens would be happy to advise you on the evidence available, the drafting of a claim for access to documents and the wider litigation strategy. Together, we will assess whether an order for the production of documents is likely to succeed in your situation and how you can substantiate the claim as concretely as possible.
Would you like more information?
Please contact Michiel or one of the other professionals from the Corporate & Commercial Litigation.
.jpg?h=315&fit=crop-50-50)
