Foreign parties and litigation costs

22 August 2024

Foreign parties and litigation costs

By Mechteld van Veen-Oudenaarden

In the Netherlands, we have the litigation costs order. If a lawsuit is lost, that party can be ordered to pay the legal costs.

This applies not only to a Dutch litigant, but also to a foreign litigant. But how does this work with a foreign party? If a foreign party fails to meet its payment obligation, one has to get the money there. This can still be quite tricky.

Foreign parties and litigation costs

Dutch law offers the possibility of bringing an incidental claim for security for legal costs. This means that the defendant, who is summoned by a foreign litigant, can claim that the foreign plaintiff must first provide security for legal costs and any damages related to the proceedings. This incident is governed by Article 224 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The idea behind this is that if the defendant wins the proceedings and the plaintiff is ordered to pay the legal costs, he will not be forced to go to a far-off foreign country to try to recover these costs there, where the recognition of the Dutch judgment may also become an issue.

Failure to provide security

If a foreign claimant is ordered to provide security for legal costs and he fails to do so, that foreign claimant is declared inadmissible in his proceedings. The proceedings are then terminated.

US exception

An exception may be made to the above obligation if it appears that a treaty exists between the countries where the parties are domiciled. Such an exception exists in the case of a US plaintiff. As early as 1956, the Netherlands and the US concluded a treaty stipulating that a US national (and that includes companies), does not have to provide security for any litigation costs. A claim for security in the case of a US plaintiff will therefore be rejected.

More information

Do you have questions regarding this article? Or do you need legal advice? Please feel free to contact us.

Mechteld van Veen-Oudenaarden

Lawyer/associate partner

Related blogs

Previous slide
Next slide

26 March 2026

The conditions for a bank guarantee to lift a seizure

Provisinal (or prejudgment) seizure of a bank account is a powerful tool for creditors to safeguard their recourse position, before a court has ruled definitively on a claim. For the party whose assets are attached, however, such attachment can be highly disruptive.

Read more

Read more about

23 February 2026

Directors’ liability: often claimed, difficult to prove

Directors’ liability sounds threatening. In practice, however, a claim brought by a bankruptcy trustee is difficult to win. The threshold for directors’ liability is high. It therefore pays to take a critical look at such liability claims and to provide a solid defence.

Read more

Read more about

27 November 2025

Interpretation of contracts: the Haviltex-ruling

Most business disputes arise from differing interpretations of agreements. That is not surprising. As Paul Scholten already said in 1909: “Words are never clear on their own.”

Read more

Read more about

2 October 2025

Purchase agreement for electric cars and non-conformity

In a ruling of the Supreme Court on 28 June 2024 concerning non-conformity in the purchase of an electric car, an important decision was made regarding the vehicle’s driving range.

Read more

Read more about

8 September 2025

General Banking Terms: impact on your business

When you enter into an agreement with a bank for a loan or a credit facility (hereinafter referred to as a “financing agreement”), you will often see that the General Banking Terms (Algemene Bank Voorwaarden or ABV) apply to that agreement.

Read more

Read more about
All articles