Czech Republic v Diag Human SE

Subject Matter

ARBITRATION — Award — Challenge to award — Claimant challenging arbitral award on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and serious irregularity — Whether claimant’s objections made to tribunal as to its jurisdiction sufficient to preserve right to bring jurisdictional challenge before court — Whether serious irregularity challenge barred because of failure to exhaust available arbitral process of appeal and available recourse under statutory provision — Arbitration Act 1996 (c 23), ss 57, 67, 68, 70(2), 73 — UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2010), art 37

[2024] EWHC 503 (Comm); [2024] Bus LR 929; [2024] 1 Lloyd's Rep 367; [2024] WLR(D) 123, KBD

ARBITRATION — Award — Challenge to award — Defendant sole shareholder transferring shareholding in company to third country legal entity — Arbitral award against claimant pursuant to bilateral investment treaty — Claimant challenging award on ground defendant no longer “investor” in control of company as result of transfer — Defendants raising timeliness objection against claimant’s jurisdictional challenge — Whether claimant’s jurisdictional challenge and defendants’ timeliness objection made in time — Whether bilateral investment treaty requiring de jure control — Arbitration Act 1996 (c 23), ss 31, 73 — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 (1980) (Cmnd 4140), art 31

[2025] EWCA Civ 588; [2025] 1 Lloyd's Rep 458; [2025] WLR(D) 270, CA

ARBITRATION — Award — Challenge to award

[2025] EWCA Civ 998, CA

AI Summary & Issues

Content generated by AI, as supplied by Jurisage. Learn more about AI Case Summaries.

In the Court of Appeal, the Czech Republic's appeals against an arbitration award were partially successful. The court upheld the award in favour of Mr Josef Stava, confirming his entitlement to damages, but set aside the award for Diag Human SE due to lack of jurisdiction. The court ordered the Czech Republic to pay 70% of Mr Stava's legal costs, addressing concerns over double recovery. The resignation of the tribunal complicated further proceedings, requiring careful consideration of the judgment's implications on the Remittal Award.

Issues

• Did the court determine whether the arbitral tribunal had substantive jurisdiction over the claims made by Diag Human SE under the bilateral investment treaty with the Czech Republic?
• Was the award in favour of Mr Stava found to be independent and severable from the award in favour of Diag Human SE, despite the latter being set aside?
• Did the court address the implications of double recovery concerning the enforcement of both the BIT Award and the 2008 Award?

Appellate History