2019年5月14日，在Nobiskrug GMBH v. Valla Yachts Limited，[2019] EWHC 1219 (Comm)一案中（判决请见：阅读页尾附件），关于买方向第三方供应商支付的款项，如果买方未能证明建造者负有向供应商付款的责任，买方仅依据权利保留是否有权向建造方收回这些款项的问题，当事双方发生争议，原告主张仲裁庭在认定上述问题时存在法律适用的错误，根据《仲裁法》第69条规定，请求法院撤销仲裁裁决，对此，英国商事法院认定：虽然仲裁庭在认定上述问题时存在一定错误，但鉴于仲裁庭在裁决中基于调查结果的范围，对不当得利与损害赔偿问题上的做法并不是不恰当的，故决定将上述问题发回仲裁庭重新审理（“In my view it would not be inappropriate to follow this course in relation to both the unjust enrichment and damages issues given the extent ofthe Tribunal's findings described earlier in the judgment.” “Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the Order will be that these issues are remitted to the Tribunal for further consideration.”）。

一、案情介绍

2012年3月29日，作为一家德国造船厂，本案原告Nobiskrug GMBH（以下简称“建造商”）与游艇买方被告Valla Yachts Limited（以下简称“买方”）签订了一份《游艇建造合同》（Yacht Construction Agreement，以下简称“合同”）。根据该合同，建造方代表买方建造一艘游艇，并在约定交付日期完成任务。

在项目进行期间，由第三方供应商ISMOTEC GmbH（以下简称“供应商”）负责游艇电气工程与电缆设计，并由建造商向其支付款项。2014年9月期间，依据供应商请求，建造商在未通知买方的情况在下，向其支付了超出合同约定费用的部分款项。

2014年12月15日，供应商就未偿还款项将建造商和买方诉至仲裁，并威胁将停止工程，三方就还款事项通过会议进行了商议。2015年1月23日，建造商向卖方通知：经会议商定，卖方应付款；建造商对供应商不负有任何赔偿责任；根据德国法规定，即使建造商有过失，供应商无权要求其支付额外款项（“(i) it was agreed at the meeting that the latter should make the payment; (ii) that Nobiskrug's opinion was that it had no liability to Ismotec;and (iii) that they had been advised that under German law Ismotec had no right to additional payments even if it was at fault.”）。在后续还款过程中，建造商以对方无合同依据为由均拒绝了供应商的还款请求。在该仲裁程序中，除了ISMOTEC GmbH供应商，还有另外几家供应商参与到其中要求建造商和买方还款。

二、仲裁庭认定

2018年4月24日，仲裁庭作出了最终裁决的第五部分裁决（Fifth Partial Final Arbitration Award），主要关于买方就其已支付供应商的额外款项向建造商提出的反请求（counterclaims）。

针对买方提出的反请求，仲裁庭认定，只要买方能证明项目管理失败属于供应商费用中的额外费用属于一项有效原因，买方就有权获得损害赔偿（“the Tribunal stated that the Valla Yachts would be entitled to damages 107…provided that the Purchaser can show that the project management failures we have found were an effective cause of any particular item of Supplier Costs claimed. We shall return to consider this question below as necessary when considering the individual Supplier Costs claims." (See also para 103.)”。

根据相关证据显示，仲裁庭认定买方向供应商支付的第一笔款项时有一项权利保留，即“该笔款项的赔偿责任还需再确认，如有必要，包括通过仲裁解决”；以及后续的几项款项都是根据上述权利保留条款的背景下作出的（“On the basis of the evidence, outlined in summary earlier in the judgment, the Tribunal was satisfied that the first payment of €750,000 was made by the Valla Yachts "subject to a reservation that liability for that sum would be determined later, including in this arbitration reference, if that were required": para [148] The same was true in respect of the further payments of €542,976, 43 €500,000, and €1,459,875 because, inter alia, each was made "against the backdrop of the agreement surrounding the first payment and the Purchaser's [Valla Yacht's] reservation of rights…”），故认定买方有权向建造商主张损失赔偿。

三、法院认定

针对建造商的上诉许可申请，Butcher J.法官准许了特定问题的上诉请求，即关于买方向第三方供应商支付的款项，如果买方未能证明建造者负有向供应商付款的责任，买方仅依据权利保留是否有权向建造方收回这些款项的问题（“In relation to payments made by the Purchaser to third party Suppliers, whether, where the Purchaser has failed to establish that the Builder was under a liability to make payment to the Suppliers, the Purchaser is entitled to recover those sums from the Builder in restitution, solely on the basis that it made those payments subject to a reservation of rights.”）。

对于仲裁庭对于建造商的赔偿认定，法院认为，首先，根据仲裁庭的调查结果，并不能认定买方基于其作出的权利保留，就有权向建造商请求其向供应商支付的所有款项，换言之，仲裁庭在作出上述认定结论的前提是错误的（“In my view it cannot be said in light of the Tribunal's findings that it determined that Valla Yachts was entitled to payment of the sums it had paid to Suppliers like Ismotec simply on the basis that it made them subject toa reservation of rights. In other words the premise of Question 1 on which permission was given was false.”）。

其次，仲裁庭认为建造商违反了合同中规定的项目管理责任，故应当承担相应的损害赔偿（“to my mind the Tribunal made a number of findings relevant to Nobiskrug's liability to Valla Yachts. First, it found that Nobiskrug was in breach of its project management responsibilities under the Agreement: seeparas 92, 107.”），但仲裁庭又在未查明建造商存在任何项目管理失败导致供应商额外费用的产生（“Moreover, there is no finding that Nobiskrug's project management failures caused Ismotec and some of the other Suppliers additional costs.”）的提前下认定买方拥有向建造商索赔的权利，其该部分认定存在问题（“It said that it would return to the issue as necessary, but in light of its other conclusions did not find it necessary do to.”）。

综上所述，虽然仲裁庭在仲裁裁决中的责任认定部分存在问题，但鉴于仲裁庭在裁决中基于调查结果的范围，对不当得利与损害赔偿问题上的做法并不是不恰当的，故决定将上述问题发回仲裁庭重新审理（“In my view it would not be inappropriate to follow this course in relation to both the unjust enrichment and damages issues given the extent ofthe Tribunal's findings described earlier in the judgment.” “Accordingly, the appeal is allowedand the Order will be that these issues are remitted to the Tribunal for further consideration.”）。

四、评析

在本案中，法院在得出结论仲裁庭裁决在相关法律责任认定上存在问题后，并未依据当事人申请直接撤销该仲裁裁决，而是在认同仲裁庭在其他方面认定的提前下，最后决定发回重审，并重点援引了David St John Sutton, Judith Gill and Matthew Gearing在《Russell on Arbtiration》，24th Edition中的观点，即根据1996年《仲裁法》第69（7）条规定，法院在决定审理第69条异议时，推定倾向于发回重审，而非撤销仲裁裁决（“Under section 69(7) of the Arbitration Act 1996 the presumption is in favour of remission of an award rather than setting it aside.”）。这一做法事实上与英国法院受理第69条法律适用错误案件时的基本思路一致，即尽量减少法院对仲裁程序的干预。