CONSILIENT HEALTH LIMITED v GEDEON RICHTER PLC

CONSILIENT HEALTH LIMITED v GEDEON RICHTER PLC

The undertakings offered by the defendant were for the claimant's protection, but since the claimant did not want them and did not propose alternative wording, there was no reason to include them in the order. The alternative undertaking regarding the Registration Dossiers was not raised at the hearing and is precluded by the principle of finality. Costs of the adjournment are reserved, as the situation is analogous to interim relief where the merits are not finally determined. Permission to appeal is refused as no real prospect of success is shown.

Parties
Claimant: Consilient Health Limited; Defendant: Gedeon Richter PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (enforcement of Award) / Consequentials Hearing Following Judgment on Enforcement Application
Outcome
Order made removing the schedule of undertakings; costs of the hearing and adjournment reserved; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Adjournment of Enforcement, Undertakings, Costs, Jurisdiction, Finality of Judgments
Arbitration Civil Procedure Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Adjournment of Enforcement Undertakings Costs Jurisdiction Finality of Judgments

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consilient Health Limited

Claimant

Gedeon Richter PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (enforcement of Award) / Consequentials Hearing Following Judgment on Enforcement Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether undertakings offered by the defendant should be included in the order
  2. 2 Whether alternative undertakings or security should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether the principle of finality precludes new undertakings at the consequential stage

Ratio Decidendi

The undertakings offered by the defendant were for the claimant's protection, but since the claimant did not want them and did not propose alternative wording, there was no reason to include them in the order. The alternative undertaking regarding the Registration Dossiers was not raised at the hearing and is precluded by the principle of finality. Costs of the adjournment are reserved, as the situation is analogous to interim relief where the merits are not finally determined. Permission to appeal is refused as no real prospect of success is shown.

Court Disposition

Order made removing the schedule of undertakings; costs of the hearing and adjournment reserved; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Schedule of undertakings removed from the order; no recital referring to the schedule.
  • Costs of the adjournment and of the hearing reserved; costs to be costs in the case.