2019年5月15日，在Weili Su and Flash Bright Power Limited v Shengkang Fei and Others, [2019]HKCFI 1257一案中（判决请见：阅读原文），双方就请求撤销仲裁裁决当事人是否应当提供担保的问题发生争议，香港高等法院原讼法庭作出认定，本案仲裁裁决的执行将因进一步的拖延变得更为困难，故作为进一步处理原告提出撤销申请的条件，命令裁决撤销请求人须提供诉讼担保（“I take the view that despite there being less than 4 weeks before the hearing of the setting aside application, enforcement of the Award will be rendered more difficult by further delay, and security must be ordered as a condition for the further conduct of the Plaintiffs’ application for setting aside.”）。

 

一、案情介绍

 

2010年1月22日，当事双方就其在Sky Solar Holdings Co Ltd公司的股份签订《股东协议》（Shareholders Agreement），本案第一原告Weili Su和第二原告Flash Bright Power Limited（以下合称“原告”，是仲裁被申请人）为公司控股股东（controlling shareholder），本案三被告Shengkang Fei、Richard Yuqiang Lu和Ranran Xu（以下合称“被告”，是仲裁申请人）为公司小股东（minority shareholder）。

 

后双方发生争议，作为公司小股东，仲裁申请人（也是本案被告）将争议提交至香港国际仲裁中心（以下简称“HKIAC”）仲裁，仲裁地在香港，主张其被排除在公司重组后新设子公司的首次公开发行（Initial Public Offering，以下简称“IPO”）股权收益之外，违反了原告在《股东协议》（以下简称“协议”）约定的义务，即“尽最大合理的商业努力”为公司IPO提供便利。2018年5月25日，HKIAC作出有利于仲裁申请人的仲裁裁决，认定被申请人违反了协议中约定义务，并向申请人赔偿损失。

 

2018年8月24日，仲裁败诉方向香港高等法院提起仲裁裁决撤销之诉，理由如下：（1）当事双方不存在有效的仲裁协议；（2）仲裁庭的组成不符合仲裁协议；（3）本案被告未能在仲裁程序中说明具体理由，以及（4）仲裁庭认定事实时缺乏证据，故仲裁庭超出其管辖权，和（或）违反了公共政策，和（或）其被剥夺陈述其立场的公平机会（“(1) there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties; (2) the composition of the tribunal was not in accordance with the agreement; (3) the Defendants (as Claimants inthe Arbitration) had failed to plead and particularize their case, as a result of which the tribunal had acted in excess of jurisdiction, and/or contrary to public policy and/or the Plaintiffs were deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case; (4) the tribunal had made findings without evidential basis, in excess of jurisdiction and/or contrary to public policy and/or the Plaintiffs were deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case.”）。

 

对此，本案被告提出反诉（counterclaim），请求香港法院执行仲裁裁决，并根据《仲裁条例》（Arbitration Ordinance）第86（4）条请求原告提供担保（security）。

 

2018年11月20日，本案被告获得香港法院颁发的针对第一原告和第三人的单方面禁令（ex parte injunction order），限制转移或处置其位于香港的任何资产。2019年4月9日，第一原告请求撤销上述禁令，该请求将在后续进行审理。

 

二、香港法院认定：被列入国内“失信被执行人名单”的原告应提供担保

 

关于要求仲裁当事人提供诉讼担保的问题，根据Staughton LJ法官在判例Soleh Boneh InternationalLtd v Government of the Republic of Uganda [1993] 2Lloyd’s Rep中提出的观点（香港法院在Guo Shun Kai v Wing Shing Chemical Co Ltd [2013] 3 HKLRD 484和Dana Shipping and Trading SA v Sino Channel Asia Ltd [2017] 1 HKC 281判例也采纳了该观点），如果仲裁裁决明显无效，可将强制执行裁决的法律程序押后，以及拒绝要求被执行人提供担保的请求；如果仲裁裁决明显有效，则应作出命令立即执行，或作出命令提供足额担保；在无效性论点勋在不同程度合理性情况下，法院须在该点初步结论的指导下进行审理（“if the award is manifestly invalid, there should be an adjournment and no order for security, and if it is manifestly valid, there should be either an order for immediate enforcement, or else an order for substantial security. In between where there are various degrees of plausibility in the argument for invalidity, the court must be guided by its preliminary conclusion on the point.”）。

 

据此，基于本案原告提出请求的理由，香港高等法院认为，本案的仲裁裁决显然是有效的（“On my brief consideration of the grounds set out in the Originating Summons, I take the view that the Award is manifestly valid.”），认定理由如下：

 

（一）当事双方存在有效的仲裁协议

 

原告主张，虽然本案当事双方是《股东协议》当事人，但被告作为小股东并不是协议中第15条仲裁条款的当事人；协议是便利投资者投资，以及为公司IPO做准备的，故该协议主要约定了投资者与控股股东及公司之间的权利义务（“However, they allege that the Defendants are not parties to the arbitration agreement contained in clause 15 of the Agreement.”“The Agreement was to define the rights and obligations between the Investors on the one hand, and the Company and Controlling Shareholder on the other.”），故作为小股东，本案被告并不是协议第15条的当事人。

 

对此，香港法院持相反意见，考虑到协议和仲裁条款的具体规定，协议第15条仲裁条款并未将本案被告排除在外（“Read as a whole, and having regard to the relevant context as well as the language of the Agreement as well as the arbitration clause, I cannot agree that objectively construed, clause 15 of the Agreement excludes the Defendants as parties.”）。根据判例Fili Shipping Co Ltd and others v Premium Nafta Products Ltd and others[2007] UKHL 40、The Incorporated Owners of Hamden Court v Mega Miles Construction Co LtdHCCT 32/2014, 2 June 2015和Giorgio Armani SPA v Elan Clothes Co Ltd[2019] HKCFI 530，仲裁条款的解释应以以下假设开始，即当事方作为理性商人，除非有明确约定某些问题被排除仲裁管辖，则极可能倾向于将因双方签订合同产生的任何争议提交至仲裁庭（“The construction of an arbitration clause should start with the presumption that the parties, as rational businessmen, are likely to have intended any dispute arising out of the relationship into which they had entered to be decided by the same tribunal, unless the language makes it clear that certain questions were intended to be excluded from the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.”）。故香港法院认定，本案被告是协议仲裁条款当事人，当事双方之间存在有效的仲裁协议。

 

（二）仲裁庭未超过其管辖权范围进行裁决

 

关于原告提出的本案被告未能在仲裁程序中说明具体理由，其被剥夺陈述其立场的公平机会的主张，香港法院认为，原告提出的该项主张纯粹是对裁决中的是非曲直以及仲裁庭的认定提出质疑（“In my view, the Plaintiffs are purely seeking to challenge the merits of the Award and the findings made by the tribunal.”），而事实或法律的错误并不构成撤销仲裁裁决的依据（“Errors of fact or law are not grounds to set aside an Award.”）。根据判例Grant Thornton International Limited v JBPB & Co (A Partnership) HCCT 13/2012, 5 April 2013，对裁决超出提交仲裁条款约定范围的任何主张都应当进行狭义解释，即仅包括与约定提交仲裁的问题显然无关或无合理要求的决定（“Any claim that an award is outside the terms of the submission to arbitration is narrowly construed. It only includes those decisions which are “clearly unrelated to or not reasonably required for the determination of the issues that have been submitted to arbitration”.”）。在本案中，法院并不认为仲裁庭作出的认定超过了提交仲裁的范围（“I fail to see how it can be said that the findings made by the tribunal on the allegedly unpleaded and unparticularised issues (even if such complaint can be made) are outside the submission to arbitration.”）。

 

（三）本案仲裁裁决在实际执行中将面临困境

 

原告主张，根据判例Soleh Boneh International Ltd v Government of the Republic of Uganda [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep提出的观点，法院在决定是否要求当事人提供担保时，需重点考虑原告在香港境内是否有足额资产，以致于相关的程序拖延是否会导致后续执行难度增加（“Leading Counsel emphasized that in determining whether security should be ordered, the focus should be on whether difficulty of enforcement here is increased due to delay, as security is not to facilitate the enforcement process by requiring assets to be brought into a jurisdiction where there were none before.”），原告在香港并不具有任何资产，故法院不应要求其提供担保。对此，香港法院则认为，原告在香港境内是否有资产仅是一个参考因素，而并不能作为唯一的或决定性因素（“Whilst I agree this is one factor, it should not be treated as the one and only or determining factor.”）。

 

为论证裁决后续执行将面临的困境，香港法院重点考虑了本案第一原告作为被执行人的整体资信（overall credibility）问题和第二原告境外涉诉情况。

 

首先，关于第一原告，被告主张其个人资信存在严重问题。具体而言，自2018年6月以来，由于未支付国内法院判决超过一亿元人民币的债务，以及违反向国内法院汇报其资产的义务，本案第一原告Weili Su被我国最高人民法院列入“失信被执行人名单”中（“As for Su’s assets on the Mainland, where he ordinarily resides, he has since June 2018 been declared and listed by the Supreme People’s Court on the Mainland as a “Dishonest Person Subject to Enforcement in China”(“Dishonest Person Listing”), because of his failure to pay a judgment debt of RMB 100,984,385 and for violating his obligations to report to the Mainland court on his assets.”）。据此，香港法院认为，该原告关于其在香港不具有资产的主张不可信，且该人具有极大可能稀释或转移其本人以及第二原告的资产，以逃避法律责任；对于法院来说，该人是一个完全不可靠的证人（“In all, I do not believe Su’s self-serving assertion that he has no assets in Hong Kong. He has demonstrated little regard for orders made by the courts, and I believe that he will have no hesitation to dissipate and remove the Plaintiffs’ assets in order to frustrate the effects of any order of any court, and to defeat the Defendants’ actions to enforce the Award made against him and the 2nd Plaintiff. His Dishonest Person Listing is specimen example of his inclinations and propensity.”“For this Court, he is a totally unreliable witness.”）。

 

其次，关于第二原告，在2019年3月和4月，本案被告分别在美国法院和英国法院成功申请针对该公司的全球冻结令（worldwidefreezing order）和国内冻结令（domestic freezing order）。此外，在本案被告在纽约提起针对原告的执行仲裁裁决之诉时，第二原告（第一原告Weili Su是该公司的控股股东和唯一董事）签订了《股票购买协议》（Stock Purchase Agreement），将其美国存托股份（American Depositary Shares）出售。被告主张上述行为构成转移资产，将导致仲裁裁决的执行更为困难。

 

考虑到上述事实和证据，香港法院认为，原告在披露其位于香港或其他地方资产的具体位置以及价值上，即使不是故意隐瞒，但也远不够坦白（“On the evidence, therefore, the Plaintiffs have been far from candid, if not deliberately evasive, in disclosing the location and value of their assets, in Hong Kong or elsewhere, a far cry from the facts of KarahaBoda.”）。

 

综合上述，香港法院认定，作为进一步处理原告提出撤销申请的条件，命令裁决撤销请求人须提供担保。

 

三、评析

 

本案涉及的核心争议点在于，请求撤销仲裁裁决的当事人是否应当提供担保。根据《纽约公约》第六条规定，“倘裁决业经向第五条第一项（戊）款所称之主管机关声请撤销或停止执行，受理援引裁决案件之机关得于其认为适当时延缓关于执行裁决之决定，并得依请求执行一造之声请，命他造提供妥适之担保。”该条规定同香港《仲裁条例》第86条规定内容基本一致，即法院可根据“请求强制执行仲裁裁决一方的申请，命令属强制执行的对象的人，提供保证”。

 

对此，香港法院重点考虑了本案涉及的仲裁裁决在实际执行时将可能面临的困境。具体而言，法院重点考虑了请求撤销裁决一方当事人（也是裁决执行对象）在个人资信是否存在问题，以及是否存在转移资产逃避法律责任的风险。值得注意的是，作为我国大陆地区的常住居民，本案第一原告（也是仲裁被诉方）被列入最高院的“失信被执行人名单”中，这一事实足以证明该人在个人资信上存在较大问题，也最终导致香港法院决定要求其提供担保。

阅读原文：https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=121956&currpage=T