2019年6月13日，在n v c[2019] hkcfi 2292一案中，香港高等法院原訟法庭（以下簡(jiǎn)稱法院）認(rèn)為，在涉案仲裁中，原告已獲得陳述案情的合理機(jī)會(huì)，仲裁員已經(jīng)處理了所有爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)。無(wú)論是基于存在嚴(yán)重不規(guī)范行為或根據(jù)《仲裁條例》第81條，法院都沒(méi)有理由撤銷裁決或?qū)⒉脹Q發(fā)回。因此，法院駁回了原告撤銷裁決或?qū)⒉脹Q發(fā)回的申請(qǐng)。
一、背景介紹
2007年3月28日，原告（仲裁程序被申請(qǐng)人）作為雇主與作為主承包商的被告（仲裁程序申請(qǐng)人）就位于澳門的住宅建造簽訂了《協(xié)議》。隨后，當(dāng)事人就工程期的延長(zhǎng)和延期損失的支付產(chǎn)生爭(zhēng)議。最終結(jié)算單顯示建筑師同意延長(zhǎng)的工期為269天，其中181天按照每日10萬(wàn)澳元延遲損失，與延遲相關(guān)的波動(dòng)損失為1200萬(wàn)澳元。建筑師未同意就剩余88天的延期支付損失。
被告提起仲裁，對(duì)建筑師出具的最終結(jié)算證明提出異議，并要求原告按照每日10萬(wàn)澳元的費(fèi)率就原定竣工期限之后的360天的延期支付延期損失，并支付延期相關(guān)的波動(dòng)損失1200萬(wàn)澳元。
《協(xié)議》第24條要求被告在引起索賠的事件發(fā)生之日起2個(gè)月內(nèi)，提交詳細(xì)的關(guān)于損失和支出的申請(qǐng)以及證據(jù)（clause 24 requires the defendant to bbbbbb its detailed application for loss and expense, supported by evidence, within 2 months from the date of the event giving rise to the loss claimed）。在仲裁程序中，原告承認(rèn)，當(dāng)事人約定了就建筑師同意的延期期間，支付每日10萬(wàn)澳元的損失和支出。但是，原告同時(shí)認(rèn)為，在2個(gè)月期限內(nèi)提交申請(qǐng)是被告主張權(quán)利的先決條件，由于被告沒(méi)有在2個(gè)月期限內(nèi)提交關(guān)于損失和支出的申請(qǐng)，故被告無(wú)權(quán)獲得任何損失和支出補(bǔ)償。被告則認(rèn)為2個(gè)月期限不是提交申請(qǐng)的先決條件。
仲裁庭認(rèn)為，被告無(wú)權(quán)根據(jù)《協(xié)議》第24條獲得損失和支出補(bǔ)償，但是根據(jù)當(dāng)事人在簽訂《協(xié)議》之前達(dá)成的協(xié)議（先合同協(xié)議），被告有權(quán)獲得損失和支出補(bǔ)償。2018年12月5日，仲裁庭作出裁決，要求仲裁被申請(qǐng)人（本案原告）向仲裁申請(qǐng)人（本案被告）支付255萬(wàn)澳元的延期損失，以及延期相關(guān)的波動(dòng)損失1200萬(wàn)澳元。2018年12月20日，仲裁庭對(duì)仲裁裁決進(jìn)行更正。
2019年1月14日，原告根據(jù)《仲裁條例》附表2第4（1）和（3）條以存在嚴(yán)重不規(guī)范行為為由請(qǐng)求法院部分撤銷仲裁裁決或?qū)⒃摬糠植脹Q發(fā)回仲裁庭。作為替代選擇，原告根據(jù)《仲裁條例》第81（1）條基于以下理由請(qǐng)求撤銷仲裁裁決：（1）未能陳述案情；（2）仲裁裁決包括對(duì)超出仲裁范圍的事項(xiàng)的裁決；（3）仲裁程序未能根據(jù)當(dāng)事人的協(xié)議進(jìn)行。
二、法院認(rèn)定
原告認(rèn)為其被剝奪了陳述案情的機(jī)會(huì)，且仲裁員超出管轄權(quán)，未能根據(jù)當(dāng)事人的協(xié)議進(jìn)行仲裁程序。原告還認(rèn)為，仲裁員未處理其在訴狀中提出的根本爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)，且被告沒(méi)有在《協(xié)議》第24條規(guī)定的時(shí)間內(nèi)提交任何關(guān)于其損失的申請(qǐng)，被告的請(qǐng)求已經(jīng)超過(guò)時(shí)間限制。
1.適用的法律原則
maeda kensetsu kogyo kabushikikaisha v china state construction engineering (hong kong) limited[2019] hkcfi 1006案列出了適用于基于嚴(yán)重不規(guī)范行為撤銷仲裁裁決的判例和法律原則，本案當(dāng)事人均未對(duì)這些原則的適用提出異議，法院沒(méi)有在本案裁定中重申這些原則。（the decision in maeda kensetsu kogyo kabushiki kaisha v china state construction engineering (hong kong) limited [2019] hkcfi 1006 sets out the authorities and legal principles applicable to the setting aside of arbitral awards on grounds of seriousir regularity (in paragraphs 4 to 10 of the judgment). neither party disputes the application of these principles, and they will not be repeated here.）
2.原告是否被剝奪了陳述案情的機(jī)會(huì)
原告指出當(dāng)事人就延期費(fèi)率（每日10萬(wàn)澳元）達(dá)成的協(xié)議沒(méi)有在訴狀中提出。對(duì)此，法院根據(jù)當(dāng)事人在仲裁程序中的相關(guān)文書(shū)和仲裁裁決中的相關(guān)段落反駁了了原告的上述論點(diǎn)，認(rèn)為被告在其答復(fù)書(shū)第26段提出了當(dāng)事人之間關(guān)于延期費(fèi)率的協(xié)議。
法院查明，原告在就每日費(fèi)率和該費(fèi)率所覆蓋的延期期間提交意見(jiàn)時(shí)，有機(jī)會(huì)就以下事項(xiàng)陳述案情：是否存在補(bǔ)償權(quán)協(xié)議，當(dāng)事人在約定采用該每日費(fèi)用時(shí)的實(shí)際意圖，以及所爭(zhēng)論的問(wèn)題所產(chǎn)生的影響（in making its submissions on the application of the daily rate, and the eot to which the agreed rate extended, the plaintiff had the opportunity to present its case on whether there was an agreement on entitlement, what the parties had in fact meant when they agreed to adopt the daily rate, and the effect of what was contended to have been agreed）。
法院認(rèn)為，根據(jù)《仲裁條例》第46 (3)(b)條，原告有權(quán)獲得陳述案情和應(yīng)對(duì)對(duì)方當(dāng)事人觀點(diǎn)的“合理機(jī)會(huì)”（what the plaintiff is entitled to under section 46 (3) (b) of the ordinance is a “reasonable opportunity” to present its case and to deal with the case of its opponent）。法院援引reliance industries ltd v union of india[2018] ewhc 822案的觀點(diǎn)表示，記住缺乏處理案件的機(jī)會(huì)與未能認(rèn)識(shí)到或抓住這樣的機(jī)會(huì)之間的區(qū)別非常重要……只要要點(diǎn)呈現(xiàn)在程序中就已經(jīng)足夠，即使它沒(méi)有被準(zhǔn)確地表達(dá)出來(lái)……最后，是否有合理機(jī)會(huì)陳述或應(yīng)對(duì)案情是公平問(wèn)題，也永遠(yuǎn)是事實(shí)和程度的問(wèn)題，視每個(gè)個(gè)案的具體情況而定（it is always important to keep in mind the distinction between a lack of opportunity to deal with a case and a failure to recognize or take such opportunity…it is enough if the point is “in play” or “in the arena” in the proceedings, even if it is not precisely articulated…whether there has been a reasonable opportunity to present or meet a case, is one of fairness and will always be one of fact and degree which is sensitive to the specific circumstances of each individual case）。
基于對(duì)當(dāng)事人的訴請(qǐng)，當(dāng)事人向仲裁員所提交意見(jiàn)的本質(zhì)，裁決中的分析及理由的解讀，法院不認(rèn)為被告在仲裁程序中未就補(bǔ)償權(quán)協(xié)議提出請(qǐng)求，也不認(rèn)為原告無(wú)法合理地將補(bǔ)償權(quán)協(xié)議設(shè)想為是仲裁中出現(xiàn)的爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)并使得原告沒(méi)有合理機(jī)會(huì)陳述其案情（on my reading of the pleaded case, the substance of the submissions made before the tribunal, and the an alysismade and reasons given in the award, i am not satisfied that the agreement on entitlement was not pleaded, or could not reasonably have been envisaged by the plaintiff as an issue arising in the arbitration, such that the plaintiff was not given the reasonable opportunity to present its case. the issue was in the arena, and the opportunity had been made available to the plaintiff, to present and argue its case on the agreement on entitlement）。法院援引了terna bahrain holding company wll v bin kamil shamsi and others[2012] ewhc 3283 (comm)案的判決以支持其觀點(diǎn)。
因此，法院不認(rèn)為仲裁員在補(bǔ)償權(quán)協(xié)議的處理和決定方面偏離了對(duì)仲裁的合理期望，故不需要基于嚴(yán)重不規(guī)范（參見(jiàn)grindrod shipping pte ltd v hundai merchant marine co ltd [2018] ewhc 1284 (comm)案），或嚴(yán)重違反正當(dāng)程序而進(jìn)行更正（in any event, on the case as pleaded, i am not satisfied that the arbitrator’s dealing with and deciding on the agreement on entitlement is sofar removed from what could reasonably be expected from the arbitration, that justice calls out for it to be corrected as a serious irregularity (grindrod shipping pte ltd v hundai merchant marine co ltd [2018] ewhc 1284 (comm)), or as an egregious denial of due process）。
3.仲裁員是否未處理所有爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)
原告認(rèn)為，仲裁員沒(méi)有處理其在訴狀中提出的時(shí)間限制問(wèn)題。法院認(rèn)為，從裁決中可以明顯看出，仲裁員是根據(jù)當(dāng)事人之間的補(bǔ)償權(quán)協(xié)議就被告對(duì)損失和費(fèi)用所享有的權(quán)利，對(duì)提交給他的問(wèn)題作出裁決（it is bbbbb from reading the award that the arbitrator decided the issues referred to him on the defendant’s entitlement to loss and expense, on the basis of the parties’ agreement on entitlement）。根據(jù)仲裁員的分析和結(jié)論，《協(xié)議》第24條規(guī)定的時(shí)間限制將不適用，因?yàn)楦鶕?jù)仲裁員關(guān)于補(bǔ)償權(quán)協(xié)議的存在和效力的結(jié)論，允許被告提出索賠（on the arbitrator’s analysis and findings, the time limit prescribed under clause 24 would not apply, as the defendant’sclaims were allowed by virtue of the arbitrator’s findings on the existence and effect of the agreement on entitlement）。
仲裁員或許沒(méi)有為裁決提供充分的理由，或者沒(méi)有充分澄清提出請(qǐng)求的時(shí)間限制基于其對(duì)補(bǔ)償權(quán)協(xié)議的存在、意義和效力的認(rèn)定而不再適用（it may be that the arbitrator had not given adequate reasons for his award, or sufficiently clarified that the claim of time bar fell away because of his findings on the existence, meaning and effect of the agreement on entitlement）。但是，正如法院在secretary of state for the home department v raytheon systems ltd[2014] ewhc 4375 (tcc)中所言，“如果仲裁庭以任何方式處理了爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)，第68 (2)(d)條即不適用，調(diào)查就此結(jié)束；仲裁庭在處理爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)方面的好壞對(duì)第68 (2)(d)條的目的而言不會(huì)有影響（if the tribunal has dealt with the issue in any way, section 68 (2) (d) is inapplicable and that is the end of the inquiry (primera at paragraph 40-1); it does not matter for the purposes of section 68 (2) (d) that the tribunal has dealt with it well, badly or indifferently）。未能為其決定提供任何理由或提供任何充分的理由并不等同于未處理某一爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)。仲裁庭未列出其得出結(jié)論的每一個(gè)步驟或未處理當(dāng)事人提出的每一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)，不等同于未能處理所提交的爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)（a failure to provide any or any sufficient reasons for the decision is not the same as failing to deal with an issue (fidelity management v myriad international [2005] 2 lloyd’s rep 508, paragraph 10, world trade corporation, paragraph 19). a failure by a tribunal to set out each step by which they reach its conclusion or deal with each point made by a party is not a failure to deal with an issue that was put to it (hussman v al ameen [2000] 2 lloyd’s rep 83)…）?！?/p>
許多法院已經(jīng)強(qiáng)調(diào)，未處理某一爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)不等同于未處理當(dāng)事人在庭審中提出的某一論點(diǎn)（根據(jù)《仲裁條例》附表第4（2）條）并因此忽略了駁回該論點(diǎn)的理由（the courts have also emphasized that a failure to deal with an issue (under section 4 (2) of the schedule) is not equivalent to failure to deal with an argument that had been advanced at the hearing and therefore to have omitted the reasons for rejecting it）。在weldon plant ltd v the commission for the new towns[2000] blr 496案中，法院解釋道，《英國(guó)仲裁法》第68（2）（d）條（相當(dāng)于《仲裁條例》附表第4（2）條）不應(yīng)被用作“對(duì)仲裁庭審議各種問(wèn)題的方式進(jìn)行詳細(xì)調(diào)查的一種手段”。
在本案中，仲裁庭認(rèn)為，被告無(wú)權(quán)根據(jù)《協(xié)議》第24條獲得損失和支出補(bǔ)償，但是根據(jù)當(dāng)事人在簽訂《協(xié)議》之前達(dá)成的先合同協(xié)議（即補(bǔ)償權(quán)協(xié)議agreement on entitlement），被告有權(quán)獲得損失和支出補(bǔ)償。被告關(guān)于損失和支出請(qǐng)求的論點(diǎn)沒(méi)有在《協(xié)議》第24條規(guī)定的時(shí)間內(nèi)提出，對(duì)于仲裁員基于獨(dú)立的補(bǔ)償權(quán)協(xié)議作出的決定和認(rèn)定沒(méi)有重大或關(guān)鍵的影響（in this case, the argument that the defendant’s claim for loss and expense was not made in time under clause 24 did not have significant or crucial effect on the arbitrator’s decision and findings on the basis of the separate agreement on entitlement）。前述secretary of state for the home department v raytheon systems ltd案的觀點(diǎn)可以恰當(dāng)?shù)剡m用到本案中。
對(duì)于以嚴(yán)重不規(guī)范為由或根據(jù)《仲裁條例》第81條提出的撤銷申請(qǐng)，仲裁庭在事實(shí)和法律認(rèn)定方面是否正確，其決定是否得到證據(jù)支持，是否已經(jīng)為其認(rèn)定提供充分理由，以及仲裁員推理的質(zhì)量都不是需要審議的事項(xiàng)（whether the arbitrator is right on his findings of facts and law, whether his decision is supported by evidence, whether he has given sufficient reasons for his finding, and the quality of the arbitrator’s reasoning, are not matters of consideration in an application to set aside for serious irregularity, or undersection 81 of the ordinance）。根據(jù)warborough investments limited v s robinson & sons (holdings) limited[2002] ewhc 2502 (ch)案的觀點(diǎn)，“問(wèn)題不在于仲裁員是否得出了正確的結(jié)論。唯一的問(wèn)題是仲裁員在得出結(jié)論時(shí)是否存在嚴(yán)重不規(guī)范的行為（the issue is not whether the arbitrator came to the right conclusion. the sole issue is whether he committed a serious irregularity in coming to the conclusion that he did）?！?/p>
4.關(guān)于波動(dòng)費(fèi)用的認(rèn)定
原告就仲裁員關(guān)于波動(dòng)費(fèi)用的認(rèn)定提出了相同的論點(diǎn)：仲裁員的決定是基于“先合同協(xié)議（ex-contract agreement）”，該先合同協(xié)議沒(méi)有在訴請(qǐng)中提出或提交仲裁員決定，且仲裁員沒(méi)有處理關(guān)于時(shí)間限制的抗辯。
在本案中，被告在申請(qǐng)書(shū)中請(qǐng)求支付延期相關(guān)的波動(dòng)費(fèi)用損失1200萬(wàn)澳元。原告辯稱，根據(jù)《協(xié)議》第24條，該請(qǐng)求超過(guò)時(shí)間限制。法院查明，當(dāng)事人在仲裁中已就訴爭(zhēng)協(xié)議（即先合同協(xié)議）中就波動(dòng)費(fèi)用以及是否承諾在承認(rèn)責(zé)任的基礎(chǔ)上支付該費(fèi)用提交了事實(shí)和專家證據(jù)。雙方當(dāng)事人提交的意見(jiàn)書(shū)表明存在訴爭(zhēng)協(xié)議，原告在結(jié)案陳詞中承認(rèn)被告援引了最終結(jié)算單中的評(píng)估。仲裁庭是基于當(dāng)事人提交的證據(jù)和論點(diǎn)得出結(jié)論。仲裁員支持被告的波動(dòng)費(fèi)用請(qǐng)求是基于“先合同協(xié)議”，而非基于《協(xié)議》，因此，《協(xié)議》第24條的先決條件和對(duì)合同請(qǐng)求提出的時(shí)間限制抗辯，對(duì)于仲裁員決定商定的爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)清單中所列的事項(xiàng)而言并不重要（the arbitrator’s allowance of the defendant’s claims for fluctuations was bbbbbly stated to be on the basis of the “ex-contract” compromise. not being based on the contract, the condition precedent in clause 24 and the time bar defence to the contractual claim would not arise as an issue essential to the arbitrator’s decision on the matters identified in the agreed list of issues）。
基于同樣的理由，法院拒絕接受原告的如下觀點(diǎn)，即由于原告未能就先合同協(xié)議陳述案情，仲裁員超越管轄權(quán)，或未能根據(jù)約定的程序進(jìn)行仲裁，或處理所有爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)（for the same reasons given under the previous 2 headings, i reject the plaintiff’s arguments that it had not been able to present its case on the ex-contract agreement, that the arbitrator had exceeded its powers, or that he had failed to either conduct the proceedings in accordance with the agreed procedure, or to deal with all the issues）。
綜上所述，法院認(rèn)為無(wú)論基于存在嚴(yán)重不規(guī)范行為，或根據(jù)《仲裁條例》第81條，法院都沒(méi)有理由撤銷裁決或?qū)⒉脹Q發(fā)回。因此法院駁回了原告的申請(qǐng)，要求原告在賠償基礎(chǔ)上向被告支付費(fèi)用（it follows from my findings and conclusions that there is no ground to either set aside or remit the award, whether for serious irregularity, or under section 81 of the ordinance. the plaintiff’s application is dismissed, with costs to the defendant on indemnity basis, with certificate for 2 counsel）。
三、評(píng)論
在本案中，涉案仲裁庭認(rèn)為，被告無(wú)權(quán)根據(jù)《協(xié)議》第24條獲得損失和支出補(bǔ)償，但是根據(jù)當(dāng)事人在簽訂《協(xié)議》之前達(dá)成的先合同協(xié)議，被告有權(quán)獲得損失和支出補(bǔ)償。仲裁員或許沒(méi)有為裁決提供充分的理由，或者沒(méi)有充分澄清提出請(qǐng)求的時(shí)間限制基于其對(duì)補(bǔ)償權(quán)協(xié)議的存在、意義和效力的認(rèn)定而不再適用。但是，法院在本案中重申，未能為其決定提供任何理由或提供任何充分的理由并不等同于未處理某一爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)。仲裁庭未列出其得出結(jié)論的每一個(gè)步驟或未處理當(dāng)事人提出的每一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)，不等同于未能處理所提交的爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)。
：洪玉蓮
：18918933859
：上海金橋高中壓閥門廠有限公司
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|