Beaufort Litigation is a boutique law firm based in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. We specialise in shipping, trade, insurance and commercial legal matters and act for clients from across the globe.

Our firm belief is that litigation must primarily be averted, if possible. Procedure in itself can disrupt an already harmed business relationship or take a toll on a client’s further line of business. A near mediation-like approach can have its effects. If what is broken cannot be mended, generally this is visible from the start. Our approach is thorough research, strict application of procedural law (and no unnecessary ancillary legal procedure, such as unfeasible incidents), factual honesty, original angles, combined with realism with regard to chances.

My typical spread of clients consists of insurers, corporates and foreign lawyers. These clients overlap: behind my love baby of (wet) shipping are brokers and insurers that face their own type of trouble – cuts out of commission or coverage issues – but it is also a market in which finance and trade are prominent. In this international environment, many lawyers meet over again and maintain a good network, providing all sorts of procedural issues.

I am most active in court procedures. Arbitration in the Netherlands is sector-specific, and not as substantial as in other jurisdictions.

The Netherlands have always maintained a high rank on the World Justice Project Rule of Law index for civil justice. Perhaps that is why the general belief in the Dutch civil court system is so strong. I would, therefore, approach your question the other way around: which ADR would fit certain types of clients? In trade, the benefits of Dutch arbitration are well known as an alternative to London or Paris arbitration. The Netherlands offers excellent legal knowledge in an atmosphere that has traditionally been very international against a backdrop of enforceability through a trusted legal system. In addition, the costs are relatively low compared to other jurisdictions. Arbitration is primarily picked in cases where specific market knowledge meets a need for privacy. Mediation would be my pick for relations that can apparently be mended.

Generally, expectancy is always a “thing”. Legal translation is as well; I come across clients that believe solid argumentation is sufficient evidence. Client management perspectives can also be interesting: it occurred twice that halfway through a procedure, it appeared that the parties were not only legally entangled, but had also renewed contracts. Admittedly, the practicality of that approach is a cultural shortcoming of my own.

Sharing knowledge is obviously worthwhile – one never stops learning. My approach is to learn while doing. No arrogance, but on the other hand, try to understand how your opponent’s lawyer came to make certain procedural choices. Good observation can open up the cards on the table.

The – important – rise of KYC and sanctions law has impacted instructions in my area of practice. The Netherlands has, for a long time, been a tax haven by political choice, which has catered for an omnipresence of foreign instructions. Good KYC and overview of beneficiary interests is now more important than ever.

One thing I find not many people, and certainly not the court system, realise is the impact of the relatively high legal interest (7% and 12.5% legal trade interest at present). In certain lines of business, leaving compensation of costs and interest in settlements was the way to go for a long time, but we’re past that now.