The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE & Anor

The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE & Anor

Most jurisdictional objections advanced by the Czech Republic are barred by s.73 as they were not raised or maintained before the arbitral tribunal. Only objections relating to Novo Nordisk co-operation agreement, Arbitration Agreement, Co-operation Agreements, Koruna Trust, Lawbook, No Control (as to Diag SE), and Dispute Timing are open. The tribunal's damages award, including recognition of the 2008 Award, was within its jurisdiction and powers. The tribunal failed to deal with the assignment issue, causing substantial injustice, but did not fail to deal with shareholding issues or exceed its powers. Admissibility and jurisdiction are distinct; only jurisdictional issues fall within s.67.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: The Czech Republic; Defendant/respondent: Diag Human SE; Defendant/respondent: Mr Josef Stava
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on S.67 and S.68 Applications
Outcome
Partial success for applicant; most s.67 challenges dismissed, s.68 challenge on assignment upheld, others dismissed or reserved.
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Objections, Admissibility, Fair and Equitable Treatment, Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Standing, Assignment of Claims, Quantum of Damages
Arbitration International Investment Law Jurisdictional Objections Admissibility Fair and Equitable Treatment Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Standing Assignment of Claims +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Czech Republic

Claimant/applicant

Diag Human SE

Defendant/respondent

Mr Josef Stava

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on S.67 and S.68 Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain jurisdictional objections are barred by s.73 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether specific objections are jurisdictional or admissibility issues
  3. 3 Whether the arbitral tribunal failed to deal with assignment and shareholding issues

Ratio Decidendi

Most jurisdictional objections advanced by the Czech Republic are barred by s.73 as they were not raised or maintained before the arbitral tribunal. Only objections relating to Novo Nordisk co-operation agreement, Arbitration Agreement, Co-operation Agreements, Koruna Trust, Lawbook, No Control (as to Diag SE), and Dispute Timing are open. The tribunal's damages award, including recognition of the 2008 Award, was within its jurisdiction and powers. The tribunal failed to deal with the assignment issue, causing substantial injustice, but did not fail to deal with shareholding issues or exceed its powers. Admissibility and jurisdiction are distinct; only jurisdictional issues fall within s.67.

Court Disposition

Partial success for applicant; most s.67 challenges dismissed, s.68 challenge on assignment upheld, others dismissed or reserved.

Orders

  • Most s.67 jurisdictional objections dismissed as barred by s.73 or not jurisdictional.
  • Objections relating to Novo Nordisk agreement, Arbitration Agreement, Co-operation Agreements, Koruna Trust, Lawbook, No Control (as to Diag SE), and Dispute Timing allowed to proceed.