Who is entitled to the balance in the third-party account when an intermediary becomes insolvent?
The CJIB fights for €418,750 in the third-party account of insolvent bailiff firm Eendracht
On 7 July 2020 Eendracht Gerechtsdeurwaarders & Credit Management B.V. is declared bankrupt. At that moment the third-party account holds €418,750.64 in funds collected from debtors of the Central Judicial Collection Agency (Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, CJIB). Two parties claim the balance: the CJIB as the original creditor, and Rexwinkel B.V. as legal successor to bailiff firm [A], which had transferred the collection instruction at the time.
The background to the arrangement: [A] had an agreement with the CJIB under which [A] collected claims from the CJIB's debtors. Because the CJIB wished to use direct debit — which is not possible from a third-party account — [A] transferred the collected amounts, after deduction of costs, from its third-party account to its ordinary bank account, from which the CJIB then collected by direct debit. In 2017 [A] transferred the actual collection work to the newly incorporated Eendracht. The CJIB was aware of this and had consented to it. Eendracht collected the amounts into its own third-party account and then transferred them onward to [A]'s ordinary account, following the same route to the CJIB.
When Eendracht became insolvent and the balance in the third-party account was fixed, [A] (later: Rexwinkel) asserted a claim to the amount, in part because [A] was Eendracht's direct contractual principal. The Rotterdam District Court and the Hague Court of Appeal rejected that claim. On appeal in cassation the Supreme Court upholds that decision.
The entitled party is the person for whose benefit payment was made — not the intermediary that passed on the instruction
The applicable test is not in dispute: those entitled to the balance of the third-party account are the persons for whose benefit sums of money were deposited into that account. What is at issue is whether, in this case, that is the CJIB or [A].
The Supreme Court aligns with three specific circumstances that the court of appeal had taken into account. First: the debtors were exclusively debtors of the CJIB and could only make a discharging payment to the bailiff working at Eendracht. Second: that bailiff named the CJIB in its writs as the person for whose benefit payment into the third-party account was to be made. Third: a different reading would mean that the original creditor is left empty-handed as soon as a bailiff passes on its instruction to a colleague — a consequence the Supreme Court considers incongruous.
Whether [A], in transferring the collection instruction to Eendracht, may have acted as an indirect representative of the CJIB was something the court of appeal was able to leave open. Even if [A] acted in its own name as Eendracht's principal — as in the case of a mandate for collection in its own name (Section 7:414 DCC) — this does not stand in the way of the CJIB being entitled to the balance. The Supreme Court states expressly (para. 3.2.4) that not only the bailiff's direct principal but also third parties may be entitled: in particular where a debtor discharges its debt to a third party by payment into the third-party account.
The protective purpose of Section 19 Gdw — protection against the bailiff's insolvency — corresponds to the same system as the notarial third-party account (Section 25 of the Notaries Act, Wet op het notarisambt). In his opinion, Advocate General Drijber pointed to the Kadasterkosten (Land Registry costs) ruling (Supreme Court, 19 November 2021, ECLI:NL:HR:2021:1720), which for the notarial third-party account had already confirmed that third parties can be entitled where a party credits an amount for the benefit of that third party. That line applies without qualification to Section 19 Gdw. The reliance by the trustee in bankruptcy and Rexwinkel on the ProCall judgment (Supreme Court, 13 June 2003, ECLI:NL:HR:2003:AF3413) fails: that judgment concerned the question whether there was a third-party account at all; here the balance was in fact held in a third-party account.
What does this mean for creditors who outsource collection through a chain of bailiffs?
Creditors who outsource their collection claims through one or more intermediaries face less risk than assumed. The third-party account also protects the balance where the bailiff carrying out the work is not the creditor's direct contractual counterparty — provided the debtors pay exclusively for the benefit of the original creditor and that creditor is named in the writs.
For collection agencies and pass-through intermediaries that place instructions with executing bailiffs in their own name, the reverse applies: a direct contractual relationship with the collecting bailiff does not, in itself, confer a right to the balance of that bailiff's third-party account. That right lies with the person for whose benefit the debtors made a discharging payment. More on the position of creditors in insolvency and enforcement proceedings on the Insolvency & Enforcement page.
Frequently asked questions
Does the balance in the third-party account fall into the bailiff's bankruptcy estate?
No. The claim arising from the third-party account belongs to the entitled parties collectively (Section 19(3) Gdw), not to the bailiff itself. On the bailiff's insolvency the balance therefore falls outside the estate. A deputy bailiff is appointed who is the only person authorised to dispose of the third-party account.
Who is entitled where a bailiff transfers its collection instruction to a colleague?
The entitled party is the original creditor of the collected claim, not the intermediary that passed on the instruction. What is decisive is for whose benefit the debtors made a discharging payment. Who the executing bailiff's direct principal is need not necessarily be determinative.
What is the difference from the ProCall judgment?
In the ProCall judgment (Supreme Court, 2003) the central issue was whether there was a third-party account at all; the funds in question were held in an ordinary bank account and fell into the bankruptcy estate. Here the balance was in fact held in a third-party account. That statutory distinction — the separation of the bailiff's assets — means the ProCall judgment does not apply here.
Supreme Court, 23 January 2026, ECLI:NL:HR:2026:96 (Le Grand q.q. / State of the Netherlands – CJIB). Opinion of Advocate General Drijber: ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:1089. On appeal in cassation from: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:1049.
Cited case law
Supreme Court: ECLI:NL:HR:2021:1720 · ECLI:NL:HR:2003:AF3413 · ECLI:NL:HR:2026:96
Advocate General: ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:1089
Courts of Appeal: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:1049