Mandate 012024
Schneider & Andre LLP — Case Archive
Volume XXIII · MMXXIV
Mandates
A Selected Record, 2001–2024
A working ledger of precedent-setting cross-border mandates — published for the instruction of standing disputes counsel, not for promotion. Each entry has been redacted to its doctrinal skeleton; the underlying pleadings remain available to retained clients under protocol.
Request a Case Review
Editor's Note
How a mandate is recorded here
A mandate enters the archive only when it has produced a recoverable judgment, a published arbitral award, or a doctrinal contribution of continuing relevance to practitioners before the courts of England and Wales, Germany, Switzerland, and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Entries are sequenced by the year of disposition and grouped under three organising rubrics, each addressing a recurring difficulty encountered by general counsel in cross-border disputes: the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under Brussels Ia; the application of the Hague 2019 Convention to parallel commercial proceedings; and the forensic tracing of assets held through layered corporate vehicles across multiple registers.
Values are reported in bands rather than as precise figures, and the identities of instructing clients and instructing entities are withheld at the partnership's standing instruction. Opposing counsel are identified by tier (Magic Circle, leading national, or specialist boutique) where doing so does not disclose the underlying identity of the dispute.
What the record shows
Three precedents, recurrent
- I.Brussels Ia enforcement. The construction of Articles 36–39 in the context of injunctive relief obtained ex parte in third-State proceedings, addressed in four matters before the CJEU since 2015.
- II.Hague 2019 application. The first commercial rulings on the interface between exclusive jurisdiction clauses and the Convention's carve-outs, argued in matters spanning 2021–2024.
- III.Parallel asset tracing. Coordinated disclosure and preservation orders across nine jurisdictions in a single 2023 action that recovered €312 million for the instructing consortium.
Across the 412 matters counted in the present record, opposing counsel of Magic Circle standing have been engaged in 287 instances, and a specialist boutique in the remainder. Standing disputes counsel to 41 of the FTSE 350 and 28 of the DAX 40.
The record in numbers
Aggregate figures, 2001–2024
- €1.4B+ Recovered for corporate claimants across thirty-one jurisdictions, 2001–2024.
- 87% Partner involvement on every matter. No associate-led hearings in our last 412 cases.
- 4 / 7 Precedent-setting cross-border enforcement cases decided by the CJEU since 2015.
- 14 Permanent in-house forensic specialists — former police, banking, and Big Four investigators.
Case Notes · Volume IX
Selected mandates, 2018–2024
Dossier entries transcribed from the partnership's private case ledger. Dated by year of disposition; figures presented in bands.
Mandate 022023
Recognition of an English freezing injunction under Brussels Ia, Article 39
Mandate 032021
Parallel proceedings — anti-suit injunction and the Brussels Ia lis pendens rule
Mandate 042018
Enforcement of a Swiss arbitral award against a sovereign-owned enterprise
Case Notes · Volume VI
Earlier precedents, 2009–2017
Continued from the partnership's earlier archive. The doctrinal arc runs from the early enforcement of intra-EU judgments under Brussels Ia, through the consolidation of jurisdictional challenges in the wake of West Tankers, to the procedural foundations that would later be refined in the post-2015 CJEU record.
Mandate 052017
Consolidation of proceedings under the Recast Brussels Ia, Article 30
Mandate 062015
Recognition of a German judgment in England following contested service
Mandate 072013
Coordinated disclosure against banking respondents in three jurisdictions
Mandate 082009
Enforcement of a CIETIC award in the Russian Federation and Cyprus
Methodological Note
On confidentiality and citation
The mandates recorded above have been redacted in two respects only: the identity of the instructing claimant has been withheld at the partnership's standing instruction, and the matter value has been presented as a band rather than as a precise figure. Each of the eight mandates is cross-referenced in a published judgment, arbitral award, or opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union; the underlying pleadings remain available to retained clients under the firm's protocol for the verification of archive entries.
The firm's standing instruction on redaction has its origin in the discretion extended to the partnership by instructing general counsel at the outset of each engagement, and is observed in the same form for every matter, regardless of the prominence of the resulting judgment. The cross-references that follow are published; the identities that would connect them to any single instructing entity are not, and remain the property of the partnership's archive rather than of this register.
Standing disputes counsel and prospective instructing clients are invited to request a confidential case-file cross-reference, and to schedule a forty-five minute case evaluation with a senior partner of the firm. Each evaluation is conducted under the same protocol as the underlying engagement.
Schneider & Andre LLP
12 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3JL
[email protected] · +44 20 7946 0815