Falsified evidence in trial leads to litigation costs order of over €25k

In a previous blog post on the violation of the duty of truth (Article 21 Rv) was written: “If you fool the judge, you will go down on your face.”. That was no idle boast. If you knowingly provide inaccurate or incomplete information in proceedings, you run a serious risk of a hefty award of costs. This was also experienced by two café owners who wanted to buy a property they had been renting part of for years. The café owners thought they could get their rights by means of a handwritten deed of sale, but it turned out to be forged, and they paid dearly for it. This emerged from a ruling by the Amsterdam District Court this summer (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:4591ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:4591). Trial lawyer Robert van Ewijk explains what the consequences were.

Cafe owners want to buy rental property

The two café owners had been renting premises in which they operated their café for many years. In September 2023, when one of the owners had already died, an attempt was made to transfer the property at the notary. However, it could not be completed because the deceased's heirs had to cooperate and an executor had yet to be appointed to the estate. In the same month, at the request of the other co-owner and one of his heirs, a handwritten purchase agreement was drawn up. This purchase agreement was backdated to February 5, 2023. This document was signed by the café owners and by the (non-deceased) co-owner. Curiously, this agreement also has a signature by the co-owner who died in June 2023. Finally, in December 2023, the other co-owner died.

Seizure and claim for delivery

The café owners laid in May 2024 prejudgment attachment on the property. They demanded that the heirs (and executors) cooperate in delivering the property. The owners' heirs and executors of the estate refused to cooperate in the delivery. According to them, the document was retrospective and the signature of one of the (deceased) owners was forged.

Signature turns out to be fake

In the court proceedings, the café owners presented the handwritten document as valid proof of a legally valid sale. Thus, they maintained that a deal had been made before the landlords' death. The heirs and executors concluded that the document was not only antedated but also contained a forged signature of one of the now deceased co-owners. The café owners knew that the co-owner had died and the signature could not be genuine. This made it clear that a false picture had been deliberately presented to the court.

Breach of duty of truth

The court determines that the café owners did indeed violate article 21 Rv, which determines:

“The parties are obliged to state the facts relevant to the decision fully and truthfully. If this obligation is not complied with, the court may draw the inference it deems advisable.”

Those who fail to do so run the risk that the court will attach consequences for that violation. And that is what happened here.

The court concludes that the false presentation of an antedated document with forged signature is not only a breach of the duty of truth, but also unlawful conduct yields.

hefty litigation cost order for forger

Although the plaintiffs (the pub owners) withdrew most of their claim during the proceedings, the other party still wanted an order for costs. It requested that the actual costs legal costs to be reimbursed instead of the usual liquidation rates. The court went along with this, as a sanction for violating the duty of truth. In total, the plaintiffs must reimburse over €25,000 in costs.

So using falsified evidence is always inadvisable. With illegally obtained evidence may be different. That's what the blog you here reads.