Why experts are essential

A personal injury case ultimately revolves around recovery and fair compensation. To assess damages, it must first be clear what the medical and practical situation is.

An expert can help answer questions such as:

• Are the complaints related to the accident, meaning is there a causal link?

• What limitations exist now and in the future?

• What does this mean for work, income, household tasks and self-reliance?

• Is additional investigation required, for example neuropsychological or psychiatric assessment?

Without this clarity, negotiations often come to a standstill. And that is exactly where the choice between two procedures becomes relevant.

An expert examination can accelerate recovery, but choosing the wrong procedure can actually cause delays.

What is a partial dispute procedure

The partial dispute procedure is designed to break deadlocks in out-of-court negotiations. It is a petition-based procedure used in personal injury and fatal accident cases. The court is asked to decide on a specific disputed issue that is blocking settlement discussions, so that parties can continue negotiating towards a settlement agreement.

Key points to remember:

• The court assesses whether its decision will meaningfully contribute to a settlement

• The court weighs time and costs against the expected benefit (the proportionality test)

• Appeals are limited due to restrictions on legal remedies

• The costs of the procedure are assessed as reasonable costs related to establishing liability and damages

A request in a partial dispute may concern cooperation with expert evidence, but the central question always remains: will this actually move the settlement process forward?

What is a preliminary expert report

A preliminary expert report is an evidentiary tool. Its purpose is to establish clarity regarding facts and circumstances that are important for your position of proof. It can be requested before initiating substantive proceedings, or during ongoing litigation.

Its main characteristics:

• The court applies a marginal test: if the request is relevant and sufficiently specific, it is usually granted

• Refusal is only possible on limited grounds, such as abuse of rights, procedural unfairness or other compelling objections

• As a rule, the applicant pays the advance on costs, although this may shift if liability has already been established

• Legal fees fall under procedural cost rules, not under the compensation framework used in partial disputes

In short, while a partial dispute focuses on advancing negotiations, a preliminary expert report focuses on securing evidence and clarifying the medical and factual basis of the case.

The key difference

These two procedures may seem similar because they often revolve around the same issue: whether an expert should be appointed. However, the legal perspective differs.

In a partial dispute, the court primarily asks:

• Will my decision help the parties move towards a settlement?

In a preliminary expert report, the court asks:

• Is this investigation relevant and sufficiently concrete to establish facts?

This difference in approach leads to different outcomes. Case law shows that a partial dispute is more likely to succeed where there is a clear deadlock and a decision will directly enable negotiations to continue. At the same time, courts may refer parties to the preliminary expert route where the request essentially amounts to: court, appoint an expert because the other party refuses.

When a partial dispute is more suitable

A partial dispute may be appropriate when:

• parties are already negotiating and there is one specific bottleneck

• agreements on expert involvement exist, but cooperation has stalled

• a court order will realistically restart negotiations

• the request is clearly defined: what must the other party do, within what timeframe, and why

In such situations, a partial dispute can be effective because it often creates immediate momentum and typically involves a more predictable cost structure for the victim.

When Article 202 DCCP is more appropriate

A preliminary expert report under Article 202 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure is often more suitable when:

• the dispute mainly concerns establishing medical causation

• there is little objective medical evidence available

• the other party has consistently refused any form of investigation

• the request for cooperation is too vague or effectively asks the court to appoint an expert

In practice, courts may reject a partial dispute if the request lacks specificity or if it is unclear how a decision would actually restart negotiations. In such cases, Article 202 DCCP is often the stronger route, as the court has less discretion to reject it based on usefulness for settlement.

Be aware of appeal limitations

This is another important distinction that is often underestimated. In preliminary expert proceedings, no appeal is possible if the request is granted. In case of refusal, appeal options are limited.

In partial disputes, the situation is more complex. Decisions on cooperation with expert evidence are usually not considered decisions on the substantive legal relationship, which means appeals are often not admissible. For victims, this means one thing: choosing the right procedure from the start is crucial, as correcting mistakes afterwards is not always easy.

What this means for victims

As a victim, you are primarily looking for clarity and progress. Disputes over expert evidence can delay your case for months. The choice of procedure can determine whether you achieve a breakthrough or face additional delays.

The practical takeaway:

• If there is an ongoing settlement process and a clear deadlock, a partial dispute may be appropriate, provided the request is concrete and genuinely contributes to a resolution.
• If the main goal is to obtain evidence and medical clarity, or if the opposing party structurally refuses cooperation, Article 202 DCCP is often the most direct route.

Choosing the right path requires a tailored approach. That is why it is important to address this at an early stage, so you avoid pursuing the wrong procedural strategy.