The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 588 (07 May 2025)

The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 588 (07 May 2025)

Jurisdictional objections raised by Czech Republic were not barred by s.73 Arbitration Act 1996, as the tribunal addressed them on their merits without reference to timing and no timeliness objection was made by Mr Stava and Diag Human SE; the tribunal is deemed to have allowed the objections to be raised within time or implicitly extended time under s.31(3).

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 588
Parties
Respondent/claimant: The Czech Republic; Appellant/defendant: Diag Human SE; Appellant/defendant: Josef Stava
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; jurisdictional objections not barred by s.73; Tribunal's findings on investor status upheld.
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996, Investor Status Under Bilateral Investment Treaty, Timeliness of Jurisdictional Objections, Extension of Time for Objections, Waiver of Right to Object
Arbitration International Investment Law Commercial Law Jurisdictional Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 Investor Status Under Bilateral Investment Treaty Timeliness of Jurisdictional Objections Extension of Time for Objections Waiver of Right to Object

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Czech Republic

Respondent/claimant

Diag Human SE

Appellant/defendant

Josef Stava

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether jurisdictional objections raised by Czech Republic were barred by s.73 Arbitration Act 1996 due to lateness
  2. 2 Whether tribunal implicitly extended time for jurisdictional objections
  3. 3 Whether Mr Stava and Diag Human SE remained qualifying investors under the Treaty after 2011 arrangements

Ratio Decidendi

Jurisdictional objections raised by Czech Republic were not barred by s.73 Arbitration Act 1996, as the tribunal addressed them on their merits without reference to timing and no timeliness objection was made by Mr Stava and Diag Human SE; the tribunal is deemed to have allowed the objections to be raised within time or implicitly extended time under s.31(3).

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; jurisdictional objections not barred by s.73; Tribunal's findings on investor status upheld.

Orders

  • Jurisdictional objections permitted;
  • No remission to tribunal required;