Disputes under inheritance law often revolve around the following question: what exactly does the estate consist of? Heirs and statutory heirs need this information to determine their position, but they do not always have access to it. The decision to initiate summary proceedings immediately is an obvious one, but it is not without risk.
In a recent ruling by the judge in preliminary relief proceedings at the Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant on 3 March 2026, a clear distinction is drawn as to when a claim for information is genuinely urgent. The crux of the matter: a need for information alone is insufficient. The requirement of urgent interest constitutes an independent, strict threshold, even within inheritance law.
Facts
The case concerns the estate of a testator who appointed his daughter and two grandsons as heirs. One grandson and his partner were appointed as executors and administrators. In addition, that same partner was designated in a living will as general attorney-in-fact, with the authority to manage the testator’s financial affairs.
Shortly before the testator’s death, the power of attorney was exercised. The testator’s home was sold and handed over, and a gift of €150,000 was made to one of the grandsons. The daughter contests this gift and, should it stand, claims her supplementary statutory share.
In order to determine her position, she requests the production of various documents, including bank statements covering several years, information regarding any insurance policies, and the accounts and statements of expenditure submitted by the authorised representative, together with the accompanying discharge statements.
The claims and the defence
The daughter argues that without the requested information, she cannot determine her statutory share. In this context, she invokes, among other things, Article 4:78 of the Dutch Civil Code, which sets out the statutory heir’s right of inspection with regard to information necessary for the calculation of the statutory share. In addition, she refers to Article 4:148 of the Dutch Civil Code, which stipulates that the executor is obliged to provide heirs with information relevant to the settlement of the estate. According to the daughter, there is a matter of urgency, as she cannot wait for proceedings on the merits and there is a risk that relevant data may be lost.
The executors’ most far-reaching defence is that there is no urgent interest. They argue that the estate is still being inventoried, that they in any event have the requested bank statements, and that the claims are premature. In their view, the daughter can assert her rights in proceedings on the merits.
Assessment by the judge in preliminary relief proceedings
Before the judge in preliminary relief proceedings proceeds to a substantive assessment of the claim, he will first assess whether there is a matter of urgency. If there is no matter of urgency, the judge in preliminary relief proceedings will not proceed to a further assessment. In doing so, it is explicitly considered that the urgency does not arise from the nature of the claim. The mere fact that the disclosure of information is sought does not, therefore, automatically render a claim urgent.
The risk put forward by the claimant that bank details might be lost is rejected. It is important that the executors have the requested bank statements at their disposal.
As it has not been shown that these details are at risk of being lost, there is no concrete and current risk justifying an immediate interim order.
Furthermore, the judge hearing the application for interim relief considers it significant that the estate is still at an early stage of settlement. The executors are still in the process of determining the extent of the estate and the shares of the inheritance. In that light, it is not unreasonable that not all information has yet been provided. The claims are therefore deemed premature.
Furthermore, with regard to the requested accounts and statements of discharge, the daughter has failed to substantiate her urgent interest. The urgent interest must be substantiated by facts and circumstances that render a postponement unacceptable. According to the judge hearing the application for interim relief, such substantiation is lacking, and he dismisses the claims without assessing their merits.
Read the full judgement here.
Implications for practice
This judgment makes it clear that the mere existence of a lack of information or uncertainty regarding the size of the estate may be insufficient to justify summary proceedings.
It is important to note that urgency cannot be based on abstract or hypothetical risks. Nor is the interest in a swift settlement of the estate or mistrust between the parties always sufficient for this purpose. The judgment confirms that summary proceedings are not always a suitable instrument for enforcing the disclosure of information and documents within an estate at an early stage. In many cases, proceedings on the merits are a more obvious course of action. For urgency to be accepted, there must be concrete and irreparable adverse consequences in the event of a delay, such as the disappearance of assets or, for example, the loss of recourse options.
Do you have any questions about your position as an heir, heir entitled to a compulsory share, or executor, or about enforcing the disclosure of information within an estate? Please feel free to contact the inheritance law solicitors at SPEE advocaten & mediation. We advise and assist clients in the settlement of estates and proceedings concerning inheritance law matters.