The Chambers Global Guide 2024 has been announced. Six lawyers from Pels Rijcken have been included because they are leading in their work according to their clients and colleagues. We asked them to look both back and ahead. Read Supreme Court lawyer Sikke Kingma's story here today, "particularly well known for handling IP disputes before the Supreme Court", according to the Chambers Global Guide 2024 ranking
You are the chair of the Supreme Court practice at Pels Rijcken. What do Supreme Court lawyers have in common?
I have been very lucky with this team, with such sharp and creative minds. They all have in-depth knowledge of civil law and a talent for posing the right questions and finding original perspectives. In addition, they are super nice colleagues who radiate how much they enjoy their work. You can also see that in our Cassation vlogs, where our team discusses the most interesting Supreme Court ruling each week.
Have you seen a shift in topics and legal areas in your Supreme Court practice and why?
I have a particular fondness for some subjects such as IP and procedural law, but I have always deliberately maintained a very broad Supreme Court practice. I litigate on matters about, for example, errors in share transactions, private international law or insolvency law with equal pleasure. I find that variety very attractive. You are always seeing new ideas from all corners of law and that in turn helps to come up with creative solutions in new cases.
By the way, it's worth noting: we work for private parties a lot, from SMEs to listed multinationals. Pels Rijcken is of course best known for its work for the public sector, but certainly in Supreme Court appeals, we are, for a very large proportion of cases, approached by lawyers from across the country who are assisting companies, trustees and individuals. And for individuals, by the way, we also litigate on a legal aid basis: after all, everyone should be able to go to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Which Supreme Court case that you were involved in in 2023 was a personal challenge and why?
Perhaps the most fascinating case of the last year was a case for a health insurer that sued a drug manufacturer for unjustified enrichment through a patent that was later terminated. The best thing about such a case is the trailblazing: you try something that has not previously been submitted to the Supreme Court, driven by a sense of what a just outcome should be, at the intersection of completely different areas of law: patent law, a rather self-contained area of law, and unjustified enrichment, a doctrine from the heart of the civil law.
Which ruling in a Supreme Court case from last year should prospective lawyers read and why?
For those like me who get unreasonably happy from litigation puzzles, HR 26 May 2023, ECLI:NL:HR:2023:784 was the judgment you could not miss last year. It is a complicated decision on appellate procedural law that also raises new questions, but my colleague Maartje Möhring discussed it very informatively in TvPP 2023, 4.
