London — The Court of Appeal has underscored the critical importance of raising timely objections in arbitration proceedings, delivering a mixed ruling in a high-profile dispute between the Czech Republic and Diag Human SE.
In its decision, the court allowed only one of three appeals challenging an investment treaty award under the Arbitration Act 1996, while dismissing the remaining claims. The ruling highlights both procedural discipline and the limits of post-award challenges in complex arbitration cases.
The court set aside part of the award after finding that one of the parties did not meet the definition of an “investor” under the applicable bilateral investment treaty (BIT). This determination proved decisive, invalidating that portion of the tribunal’s decision.
However, the broader challenge mounted by the appellant was largely unsuccessful. The respondents had argued that the claims were barred under Section 73 of the Arbitration Act, which prevents parties from raising objections they failed to make promptly during proceedings. They also contended that most of the issues raised were not jurisdictional in nature, and therefore did not qualify for challenge under Section 67.
While the court rejected some of these procedural defenses, it ultimately concluded that—with one exception—the appellant’s arguments did not meet the threshold for jurisdictional challenges. As a result, the remaining appeals were dismissed.
Legal analysts say the ruling sends a clear message to parties involved in arbitration: objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity or risk being forfeited. The decision reinforces the courts’ reluctance to entertain late-stage challenges, particularly where parties had the chance to address concerns during the arbitration itself.
The judgment is expected to have significant implications for arbitration practice, especially in investment treaty disputes, where questions of jurisdiction and party status often play a central role.