Penalty for an unclear, confusing, and contradictory summons

Recently, the Amsterdam District Court (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:9874) a full award of litigation costs was issued, and for a striking reason: there was an “obscure libel.” An “obscure libel” refers to a legal document that is so unclear, confusing, or contradictory that it makes no sense at all. Article 111, paragraph 2, subparagraph d of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a summons must set forth the claim and the grounds for it. Article 120(1) provides that a summons is void if this requirement is not met.

The summons makes no sense: an obscure libel

This case concerned the distribution of royalties from a musical composition. The court, however, held that the subpoena was very unclear and illegible, and described it as an obscure libel:

“4.16. Due to the numerous digressions into irrelevant matters (including various music tracks and remixes, see 4.1) and the constant intermingling of contractual and statutory grounds, it was unclear to the defendants, based on the summons, against what they were required to defend themselves and by what standard the court should assess the claims. The summons therefore fails to meet the minimum requirements of readability and comprehensibility and must be regarded as an obscure libel. Pursuant to Article 111(2)(d) and Article 120(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, such a summons is null and void.”

However, the defendant had not raised the issue of nullity and had appeared in court, as a result of which the judge did not, at first instance, take the illegibility into account:

“Since Moonlight et al. appeared in these proceedings and did not raise a defense of nullity of the summons, the failure to meet the minimum requirements of legibility and comprehensibility has no further consequences (Article 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure)”

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims because it had not been sufficiently alleged or proven that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the distribution of operating revenues.

Penalty for an Illegible and Confusing Summons

The party found to be in the wrong by the court must legal costs to be paid by the opposing party. Litigation costs include, at a minimum, the court filing fee and (a portion of) the attorney’s fees. There are three types of orders for litigation costs: i) the standard order, ii) the reasonable order (in IP Matters) and iii) the actual costs. The court found the summons in this case to be so unclear that it ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s actual litigation costs.

The Standard Award of Litigation Costs

In ‘normal’ proceedings, only a small portion of the attorney’s fees is actually reimbursed. In the Netherlands, a system known as the “liquidation rate” is used, in which a certain number of points is assigned to each procedural step. One point represents a specific amount. In practice, however, the litigation costs reimbursed by the losing party are often significantly lower than the actual costs incurred.

The situation is different in intellectual property cases. Article 1019h of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the losing party in the “reasonable and proportionate court costs and other expenses”may be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the party deemed to have prevailed. However, the party deemed to have prevailed must have requested this.".

For such an award, courts use guideline rates to determine what constitutes reasonable and proportionate litigation costs. However, these are merely guidelines, so the judge may deviate from them.

Deviating from the general rule due to an obscure libel

Because the plaintiff lost the case, and since it was an intellectual property case, the plaintiff could, in principle, be ordered to pay the reasonable litigation costs based on Article 1019h of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court, however, held that the present case constituted an exceptional circumstance that warranted allowing the plaintiff to really to order the defendant to pay the costs incurred. That exceptional circumstance was the fact that the summons was so unclear and illegible that the defendant’s attorney logically needed much more time to understand and analyze the documents and to mount a sound defense against them:

“As discussed above in sections 4.15 and 4.16, the summons contains numerous digressions regarding irrelevant circumstances, with references to hundreds of pages of exhibits, and does not meet the minimum requirements for readability and comprehensibility. Consequently, the attorneys for Moonlight et al. understandably required more time than usual to fully grasp the [plaintiff’s] arguments and to mount a defense against them. Incidentally, this has resulted in relatively concise pleadings containing a clear and well-organized defense on the part of Moonlight et al.“

On balance, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant €31,262.40 in litigation costs.

The Importance of a Well-Drafted Summons

The ruling above shows once again that a good attorney or legal professional can make all the difference in your case. While AI can generate extensive texts that sound professional at first glance, those texts can also be so unclear and controversial that your claim is dismissed—and you end up facing a penalty as well.