Lawyers can litigate in commercial writ cases

You must now decide whether to adopt digital filing for each commercial writ case, and if you do, you must establish documented controls over access, version management, submission proof and case routing before the relevant cause-list hearing. This is an internal governance choice, not a technical one, and the firm bears full responsibility for demonstrating what was filed and when.

An analysis of 9 October 2026 of digital litigation in commercial writ cases argues that the judiciary is extending voluntary digital filing to all district courts and three courts of appeal. The extension takes effect on 12 October 2026 for cases brought on or after 28 October 2026 at district courts, and on the same date for cases at Amsterdam, Den Haag and 's-Hertogenbosch courts of appeal with a cause-list date of 27 October 2026 or later. In our assessment, the voluntary nature of this route creates a governance obligation rather than a technical one: because firms can now choose digital filing per case, the risk of mixing paper and digital workflows within a single firm becomes material, and the burden of proof that the correct version was submitted at the correct time rests entirely with the firm.

What changes in your filing workflow?

From 12 October 2026, you can file documents for commercial writ cases through Mijn Rechtspraak instead of submitting paper. Access is granted per case, and you can submit documents or initiate new cases through a digital case file. The extension builds on pilots that ran at Den Haag district court and the Arnhem-Leeuwarden court of appeal from 2 June 2025. This is not a mandatory change: you retain the option to file on paper, and you can decide per case whether to use the digital route.

Which governance failures does a voluntary route create?

Because digital filing is optional, firms will operate mixed workflows. This introduces specific failure modes:

• Accidental mixing of paper and digital tracks — a case may be partially filed on paper and partially through Mijn Rechtspraak, creating ambiguity about what the court received.
• Unclear responsibility for submission — without designated authorised users per case, it becomes unclear who submitted what and whether they had authority to do so.
• Version control breakdown — multiple versions of a procedural document may exist, and the firm may be unable to demonstrate which version was actually submitted.
• Loss of submission evidence — without independent records, the firm cannot later prove that a document was submitted, when it was submitted, or in what form.
• Cause-list date misalignment — cases brought before the specified cause-list dates cannot use the digital route, and the firm must track these dates per case to avoid attempting digital filing where it is not available.

Which controls must you demonstrate?

You should treat this extension as a control and oversight question. The following measures will allow you to reconstruct what happened and prove it to the court:

1. Record per case which filing route is used — maintain a log showing whether each case was filed digitally or on paper, so that no one accidentally treats a paper case as digital or vice versa.
2. Designate authorised users per case with individual authentication — establish who is permitted to file on behalf of the firm in each case, and ensure each person authenticates individually rather than sharing credentials.
3. Verify cause-list dates before filing — check the applicable cause-list date for each case (28 October at district courts, 27 October at the three named courts of appeal) and confirm that the case meets the eligibility threshold before attempting digital submission.
4. Retain submission confirmation as a standalone document — keep the court's receipt of your submission as a separate file in your case record, not embedded in email or other correspondence.
5. Maintain an independent version register — document which version of each procedural document was submitted, when it was submitted, and retain copies of what was actually filed so that you can later demonstrate the state of the file at any given moment.

What does tooling handle and what remains your responsibility?

Mijn Rechtspraak will manage the technical connection to the court and provide a digital case file interface. It will not manage your internal version control, your access permissions, your case-by-case routing decisions, or your audit trail. Those remain your professional responsibility. You should treat the system as a filing channel, not as a substitute for your own file governance. The extension itself does not require you to implement these controls; the judiciary's responsibility ends at accepting digital submissions. Your responsibility for verifiable evidence of what you filed and when does not end there.