您目前的位置: 首页» 咨询资讯» 英国法院中止清算申请以支持仲裁(英国案例)

英国法院中止清算申请以支持仲裁(英国案例)

2020年7月29日,在 Telnic Ltd v Knipp Medien Und Kommunikation GmbH [2020] EWHC 2075 (Ch) 一案中,就一方当事人基于合同债务针对另一方当事人所提出的清算申请,英格兰与威尔士高等法院商事法庭(以下简称法院)认为,如果诉争债务受仲裁协议约束,法院的通常做法是行使自由裁量权中止或驳回清算申请以支持仲裁,除非存在“完全例外的情况”。法院对本案事实进行分析后认为,不存在任何罕见的完全例外的情况使法院背离其驳回或中止清算申请的通常做法。因此,法院认为作出涉案命令的Schaffer法官行使自由裁量权中止清算申请并无不当,故驳回了当事人对涉案命令的上诉和交叉上诉。

一、背景介绍

2009年12月1日,Knipp和Telnic就提供数据托管和软件开发服务签订了服务协议(以下简称“《协议》”)。《协议》第12.1和12.2条规定,在收到Knipp每月账单后30天内,Telnic应向Knipp支付服务费。第23.1条规定:“因本协议或本协议的违约、终止或有效性而产生或与之有关的任何争议或索赔”应根据任何一方的书面请求提交仲裁。

2014年11月,Knipp和Telnic据称达成了进一步的协议(“《条款说明》(Term Sheet)”),约定共同成立一家新的德国公司“NEWCO”,但该公司的设立并未落实。

2019年3月19日,Knipp要求Telnic支付263,777.28英镑的服务费。这些费用尚未支付。

2019年10月25日,Knipp以Telnic无力偿还债务为由提起诉讼,请求法院对Telnic进行债务清算。Schaffer法官于2019年12月19日作出命令(涉案命令),限制Knipp 继续进行针对Telnic的清算程序,以Telnic未承认债务且应提交仲裁为由中止清算程序,并命令Knipp向Telnic支付2.5万英镑的费用,存入由事务律师持有的托管账户。Fancourt法官于2020年4月29日准予Telnic对涉案命令提出上诉。本案法官Sir Geoffrey Vos于2020年6月10日准予Knipp对涉案命令提出交叉上诉。在涉案命令作出后,Telnic和Knipp启动了仲裁程序。

法院对当事人所提出的上诉和交叉上诉作出如下认定。

二、法院认定

从本质上说,当事人的上诉和交叉上诉提出了以下5个问题:(1)Schaffer法官认为其受 Salford Estates  (No. 2) Limited v. Altomart Limited (No. 2) [2015] Ch 589案的约束,在厘清债务是否有实质理由存在善意争议之前,须考虑是否存在完全例外的情况,该认定是否正确。(2)Schaffer法官认为在本案中不存在此种完全例外的情况,该认定是否正确。(3)Schaffer法官应当驳回申请,中止申请还是允许申请继续进行。(4)Schaffer法官命令Knipp按照标准支付Telnic的费用,该决定是否错误。(5)Schaffer法官命令Knipp将费用支付到托管账户,而非直接支付给Telnic,该决定是否错误。

(In essence, the appeal and cross-appeal raise just 5 issues:-

i) Was the judge right to decide that he was bound by Salford Estates (No. 2) Limitedv. Altomart Limited (No. 2) [2015] Ch 589 ("Salford Estates") to consider whether there were wholly exceptional circumstances before moving to ask whether the debt was disputed in good faith on substantial grounds?

ii) Was the judge right, in effect, to decide that there were, in this case, no such wholly exceptional circumstances?

iii) Should the judge have dismissed the petition, stayed the petition, or allowed the petition to proceed?

iv) Was the judge wrong to have ordered Knipp to pay Telnic's costs on the standard basis?

v) Was the judge wrong to order Knipp to pay the costs into an escrow account, rather than directly to Telnic?)

与本案相关的主要判例是 Salford Estates 案,Schaffer法官在作出涉案命令时援引了该判例。该案法官表示,“我得出结论认为《1996年仲裁法》第9条的强制中止规定不适用于本案,但问题并未到此结束。《1986年破产法》第122(1)条赋予法院对公司进行清算的自由裁量权。除我目前难以想象的“完全例外的情况”外,法院按照《1996年仲裁法》的规定行使自由裁量权是完全适当的……当债权人同意将与债务有关的任何争议提交仲裁时,公司法院(Companies' Court)对未经承认的债务(提出清算申请的依据)的责任进行简易判决式分析是反常的……诉状中提到的债务无疑属于租赁合同中措辞宽泛的仲裁条款的范围。债务未被承认。无论抗辩的实质案情如何,是否存在正在进行追讨债务的程序,这已足以构成《1996年仲裁法》下的争议,会触发《1996年仲裁法》第9(1)条的自动中止的规定。基于所提供的理由,我认为,作为根据《1986年法案》第122(1)(f)条行使自由裁量权的事项,法院的正确做法是驳回申请或中止申请以强制当事人通过其选择的方法来解决债务争议,而非调查债务是否有实质理由存在善意争议。”

(My conclusion that the mandatory stay provisions in section 9 of the [Arbitration Act 1996] do not apply in the present case is not, however, the end of the matter. Section 122(1) of the 1986 Act confers on the court a discretionary power to wind up a company. It is entirely appropriate that the court should, save in wholly exceptional circumstances which I presently find difficult to envisage, exercise its discretion consistently with the legislative policy embodied in the 1996 Act.[…] It would be anomalous, in the circumstances, for the Companies' Court to conduct a summary judgment type analysis of liability for an unadmitted debt, on which a winding up petition is grounded, when the creditor has agreed to refer any dispute relating to the debt to arbitration. […]There is no doubtthat the debt mentioned in the Petition falls within the very wide terms of the arbitration clause in the Lease. The debt is not admitted. In accordance with the decision in the Halki Shipping case [HalkiShipping Corporation v. Sopex Oils Limited [1998] 1 WLR 726], that is sufficient to constitute a dispute within the 1996 Act, irrespective of the substantive merits of any defence, and, were there proceedings on foot to recover the debt, to trigger the automatic stay provision in section 9(1) of the 1996 Act. For the reasons I have given, I consider that, as a matter of the exercise of the court's discretion under section 122(1)(f) of the 1986 Act, it was right for the court either to dismiss or to stay the Petition so as to compel the parties to resolve their dispute over the debt by their chosen method of dispute resolution rather than require the court to investigate whether or not the debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds)

另外,在 AnAn Group (Singapore) Ptw Ltd v. VTB Bank [2020] SGCA 33案中,新加坡上诉法院考虑了基于债务(该债务是仲裁协议的标的)的清算申请的审查标准。它在很大程度上遵循了 Salford Estates 案结论,即“在债务人并非滥用法院程序而提出争议的前提下,只要(a)当事人之间有有效的仲裁协议;(b)争议属于仲裁协议的范围,则将中止或驳回清算程序。”((a) there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties; and (b) the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement, provided that the dispute is not being raised by the debtor in abuse of the court's process)。该案法官认为“完全例外情况”除外的标准过于严格,应使用“滥用法院程序”除外的标准(The CAS thought that the "wholly exceptional circumstances" exclusion was too exacting a standard, imposing the "abuse of the court's process" exclusion instead)。同时,该案法官援引 Fieldfisher LLP v.Pennyfeathers Ltd [2016] EWHC 566 (Ch)案的事实认为,所谓的债务人曾经承认款项到期这一事实不属于完全例外情况的范畴。

1. Schaffer法官是否受 Salford Estates (No. 2) Limited v. Altomart Limited (No. 2) [2015] Ch 589案的约束,在厘清债务是否有实质理由存在善意争议之前,须考虑是否存在完全例外的情况

法院指出,在本案中如果满足以下条件,则Schaffer法官受 SalfordEstates 案裁定的约束:(1)被诉债务据称由《协议》产生;(2)《协议》包含有约束力的仲裁条款;(3)债务存在争议或未被承认。

根据 Salford Estates 案,在被诉债务受仲裁协议约束的情况下,法官不应“对责任进行简易判决式分析”(conduct a summary judgment type analysis of liability)。据此,除非是完全例外的情况,法官不应调查债务是否有实质性理由存在善意争议(It is not, therefore, appropriate, save in wholly exceptional circumstances, for that judge to inquire whether the debt is disputed in good faith on substantial grounds, such an investigation should not be made unless wholly exceptional circumstances were established)。法院同意Nugee法官在 Fieldfisher 案中的观点,即使过去曾承认债务(至少那些在提出申请前看似被撤回的对债务的承认)也不构成此种完全例外的情况。因为法官必须行使自由裁量权,以便:(a)支持《1996年仲裁法》的政策;(b)阻止当事人通过清算申请规避已订立的仲裁协议;(c)防止一方当事人对被指控的债务人施加压力,要求其立即偿还债务,否则将承担举证责任使法院确信该债务有实质理由存在善意争议;(d)要求当事人遵守其关于解决此类问题的适当场所的协议。((a) uphold the policy of the Arbitration Act 1986, (b) discourage parties to an arbitration agreement from bypassing it as a tactic by presenting a winding up petition, (c) prevent one party applying pressure on an alleged debtor to pay up immediately or face the burden of satisfying the court that the debt was bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, and (d) require the parties to adhere to their agreement as to the proper forum for the resolution of such an issue)

在这种情况下,唯一真正的问题是是否存在这种完全例外的情况。因此,法院认为,Schaffer法官受 Salford Estates 案裁定的约束,在厘清债务是否基于实质理由存在善意争议之前,须考虑是否存在完全例外的情况。

2. Schaffer法官认为在本案中不存在此种完全例外的情况,该认定是否正确

“完全例外情况”的检验标准非常严格。法院认为本案不存在“完全例外的情况”。 Knipp所声称的Telnic对债务的承认都存在限制,使得此种承认不具有决定性。Knipp所声称的资不抵债也尚不明确,这是常见情况。即使Telnic确实资不抵债,也不能支持Knipp的清算申请,除非它能证明自己是债权人(The alleged balance sheet insolvency is unclear as is so commonly the case. Even if it were the case, it would not give Knipp locus standi to pursue a petition unless it could show that it was a creditor)。Knipp所声称的非法分配也存在争议,这涉及无法在此类程序中解决的法律和事实的复杂问题。Telnic寻求中止仲裁的行为可能不合适,但很难称之为完全例外的情况(The alleged unlawful distribution is also disputed and itself raises complex issues of law and fact that cannot be resolved in proceedings of this kind. Telnic's conduct in seeking to stay the arbitration may have been unfortunate, but can hardly be described as a wholly exceptional circumstance)。

法院并非在任何情况下都不能调查债务是否有实质理由存在善意争议,这是一个自由裁量权问题。但是如 Salford Estates 案所给出的理由,这种情况非常罕见。在详细审查Knipp所提出的情形后,法院认为,本案不存在任何罕见的完全例外的情况使法院背离其驳回或中止清算申请的通常做法(the circumstances will be very rare for the reasons given in Salford Estates. Having now examined the circumstances raised by Knipp in this case in detail, I have reached the clear conclusion that no very rare and wholly exceptional circumstances exist here that would justify the court in departing from its usual practice which is to dismiss or stay the petition)。

3. Schaffer法官应当驳回申请,中止申请还是允许申请继续进行

在涉案命令中,Schaffer法官选择中止清算程序,而非驳回清算程序,并为此提供了很多理由。法院认为,法院享有中止或驳回诉讼的自由裁量权,问题在于该权力是否得到正确行使。

法院认为,在本案中,Schaffer法官以适当的方式在中止清算申请与驳回清算申请之间行使了自由裁量权。没有任何迹象表明Schaffer法官未意识到需要仔细考虑这个问题。虽然Schaffer法官未明确提及,但从该法官的说法中可以得出以下公正的推论,即其认为通常的做法是驳回申请。这也是为何该法官会在简短的裁定中详细解释其对所授予的救济(即中止清算申请)施加限制的确切理由。另外,该法官明确援引 Salford Estates 案的相关段落,反复强调在行使清算法院的自由裁量权时,必须维护《1996年仲裁法》的政策。此外,Schaffer法官所考虑的事项或多或少都与其所行使的自由裁量权有关。(the judge exercised his discretion as between stay and dismissal of the petition in an appropriate manner. It seems a fair inference from what he did say, and despite the fact that he did not mention the point expressly, that he understood that the normal course would have been to dismiss the petition. Moreover, his judgment expressly cited the passage from Sir Terence Etherton C's judgment in which he spoke repeatedly of the need, in exercising the winding up court's discretion, to uphold the policy of the Arbitration Act 1996)。

因此,法院认为,Schaffer法官中止清算申请并无不当。

4. Schaffer法官命令Knipp按照标准支付Telnic的费用,该决定是否错误

对于第四个问题,法院认为,只有当Telnic在第三个问题上是正确的情况下,这个问题才会出现。一旦确定法官有权中止清算申请,命令支付标准费用就完全恰当。

5. Schaffer法官命令Knipp将费用支付到托管账户,而非直接支付给Telnic,该决定是否错误

对于第五个问题,法院认为这完全属于法院在费用问题上的广泛自由裁量权的问题。Schaffer法官当时对Telnic是否愿意参与仲裁的怀疑是合理的。该法官要求将费用存入托管账户,以防Knipp的所有指控都成为现实且后来证明Telnic确实出于恶意或基于不真实的理由对诉请债务表示抗议。法院不认为Schaffer法官行使自由裁量权有任何不当之处。(Again, I see this as entirely a matter of the court's wide discretion as to costs. The judge was justified in his scepticism at the time about Telnic's willingness to engage in the arbitration. He required the costs to be deposited in escrow in case all that Knipp had been alleging came true, and it was later shown that Telnic had indeed been contesting the petition debt in bad faith or on insubstantial grounds. I do not see any reason to suppose that the judge exercised his discretion as to the costs on an improper basis.)

综上所述,法院驳回当事人的所有上诉和交叉上诉,并维持Schaffer法官所作的涉案命令。

三、评论

根据法院的观点,对于一方当事人基于债务针对另一方当事人所提出的清算申请,如果诉争债务受仲裁协议约束,法院的通常做法是行使自由裁量权中止或驳回清算申请以支持仲裁,除非存在“完全例外的情况”。

如果不存在“完全例外的情况”,法院将行使自由裁量权中止或驳回清算申请以支持仲裁。如果存在“完全例外的情况”,法院将进一步调查债务是否存在善意争议,若存在善意争议,法院将行使自由裁量权中止或驳回清算申请以支持仲裁。若不存在善意争议(债务人承认债务),法院将继续审理清算申请。

值得注意的是,“完全例外的情况”的标准十分严格,在本案及其所援引的判例中,均未举例说明何种情况满足“完全例外”的标准。正如 Salford Estates 案的法官所言,这种完全例外的情况“目前难以想象”。

由此可见,在债务受仲裁协议约束的情况下,一方当事人要基于债务请求法院对另一方当事人进行清算,这种做法很可能徒劳无功。