The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE & Anor

The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE & Anor

The Claimant's formal undertaking to comply with any costs order is sufficient assurance; there is no evidence of risk of dissipation or prejudice to enforcement during the challenge, and the Defendants have not demonstrated that the Claimant's challenge is flimsy or that security is warranted under s. 70(6) or s. 70(7) of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Parties
Claimant: The Czech Republic; First Defendant: Diag Human SE; Second Defendant: Mr Josef Stava
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge / Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs and Security for Award Pending Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Both applications for security for costs and for the award are dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Security for Award, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Section 67 and 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenges
Arbitration Commercial Law Security for Costs Security for Award Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Section 67 and 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenges

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Czech Republic

Claimant

Diag Human SE

First Defendant

Mr Josef Stava

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge / Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs and Security for Award Pending Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered under s. 70(6) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether security for the amount of the arbitral award should be ordered under s. 70(7) Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's formal undertaking to comply with any costs order is sufficient assurance; there is no evidence of risk of dissipation or prejudice to enforcement during the challenge, and the Defendants have not demonstrated that the Claimant's challenge is flimsy or that security is warranted under s. 70(6) or s. 70(7) of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Both applications for security for costs and for the award are dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for security for costs under s. 70(6) Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.
  • Application for security for the 2022 BIT Award under s. 70(7) Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.