Jurisdiction and serious irregularity: investment arbitration

The lengthy and complex judgment of Foxton J in Czech Republic v Diag Human SE [2024] EWHC 503 (Comm); [2024] 1 Lloyd's Rep 367, yet another contribution to a dispute that has been running for over 30 years, sets out important analysis of a series of provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996, including sections 30, 57, 67, 68 and 73.

The judgment necessitated a careful review of a very detailed arbitration process and award to determine what had and had not been determined. The decision paves the way for a series of jurisdictional challenges as well as remission of the award on a couple of points relating to the assessment of damages.