Jozua van der Beek

Partner

Jozua is partner at bureau Brandeis. He litigates before the Supreme Court in civil cases. In corporate and commercial litigation cases he also litigates before the lower courts. In addition, Jozua establishes international collective settlements of mass damage claims. Moreover, Jozua has extensive experience in proceedings before the Supreme Court and the lower courts about the nullification and enforcement of international arbitral awards.

Jozua studied Dutch law (graduated with honours) at the University of Nijmegen. He subsequently worked as a lawyer at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek for 10 years, predominantly in the Supreme Court litigation practice and corporate litigation.

Clients appreciate Jozua for being a sharp lawyer, an analytical thinker and a trusted advisor. Clients can always trust that Jozua puts their interests first. He provides clients with clear and honest advice about the strength and weaknesses of the case. His legal knowledge is both broad and deep. On the basis of a thorough analysis Jozua always gets to the heart of the matter. Counterparties fear his sharp arguments.

Some recent work of Jozua van der Beek:

  • Representing Chevron Corporation (USA) and Texaco Petroleum Company before the Supreme Court in a dispute with the Republic of Ecuador about a claim for nullification of an arbitral award based on a bilateral investment treaty (Supreme Court 26 September 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:2837);
  • Representing a client before the Supreme Court in proceedings about res judicata and the procedure for the recognition of a foreign arbitral award (HR 31 maart 2017, NJ 2017/343, ECLI:NL:HR:207:555);
  • Representing a client before the Supreme Court in a case about the right to freedom of speech vs the right to privacy regarding the publication of a book and the possibility of an employer to initiate legal proceedings in the interest of an employee (HR 31 maart 2017, NJ 2017/238, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:569);
  • Representing a client before the Supreme Court in a case about the alleged appearance of the granting of a power of attorney (Supreme Court 2 February 2017, ECLI: NL:HR2017:143);
  • Representing a company before the Supreme Court in enquiry proceedings about forfeiture of rights, (exceptions to) the capital requirement and the obligation to submit the complaints in writing in advance (Supreme Court 11 November 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:2574).
  • Representing a company before the Supreme Court in a dispute with the State about state immunity from execution and the interpretation of the Energy Charter Treaty (Supreme Court 14 October 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:2371);
  • Representing Habitat before the Supreme Court in a dispute with a franchisee about the question whether damage was suffered as a consequence of an alleged breach of contract in case the party claiming to have suffered damage has subsequently entered into a new contract that takes away any alleged damage (Supreme Court 23 September 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:2180). This case provides the answer to an extensive debate in legal literature about a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 10 July 2009, NJ 2011/43 (Vos/TSN). The Supreme Court refers to its judgment dated 8 July 2016 in a cartel damage case about a similar legal question;
  • Representing two criminal lawyers’ associations before the Supreme Court in a case against the State about the right to the effective assistance of counsel (Supreme Court 13 September 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:2068);
  • Representing a creditor before the Supreme Court in a dispute with the bankruptcy trustee about a set-off right (Supreme Court 10 July 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:1825);
  • Representing an insurance company before the Supreme Court in a dispute with an insured about an insurance policy that explicitly excluded conditional intent but not driving under the influence of alcohol (Supreme Court 15 January 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:83);
  • Representing a creditor before the Supreme Court in a case about a right of pledge (Supreme Court 21 February 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:415).