2019年5月17日，在GA-HYUN CHUNG (AS THE FORMER STATUTORY TRUSTEE OF HOMER HULBERT MARITIME CO. LTD.)(a dissolved Marshall Islands company) v SILVER DRY BULK CO. LTD. [2019] EWHC 1147 (Comm)一案中，原告不服仲裁裁决，根据1996英国仲裁法第67条（substantive jurisdiction）向商事法院提起上诉，认为仲裁从未曾有效开启，仲裁裁决无效。因为在提交仲裁的通知被送交HOMER HULBERT MARITIME CO. LTD.8个月前该公司就已经解散或者歇业（dissolved and wound up）。英国商事法院对此做出认定：根据BCA第105条之规定，该公司确已在2014年10月不复存在。
一、案件事实
该案原告Mr Chung是Homer Hulbert Maritime Co. Ltd (以下简称"HH")的受托人（"trustee"）。该案源自HH和本案被告SILVER DRY BULK CO. LTD.("以下简称SDBC")的一份船舶买卖下的争议。买卖协议备忘录约定争议解决方式为伦敦仲裁，后来，买方SDBC于2014年10月29日将提交仲裁的通知提交给马绍尔群岛司法部长（ Attorney General of the Marshall Islands.）。后来，被告又将仲裁通知发送给Sinokor Merchant Marine Co.Ltd.和 Sinokor Maritime Co Ltd（Sinokor），因为被告认为这两家公司合并了HH，是HH的母公司（"owner"）。但是，根据原告提供的证据HH并不是上述公司的附属机构，而且Mr Chung否认收到仲裁的通知，同时认为，没有证据能证明马绍尔群岛司法部长（ Attorney General of the Marshall Islands.）将仲裁通知发送给在韩国的HH。
Sinokor本欲拒绝参加仲裁程序，但最后在保留前提下参与仲裁程序，Sinokor抗议的理由是：独任仲裁员是否享有管辖权，是否存在有效的仲裁协议，仲裁庭是否合理组成。原告并未参加仲裁程序，本案在被告指定的独任仲裁员的审理下做出裁决。
法院认定
1、弃权与否之争？（whether HH has waived any right to challenge the arbitrator's jurisdiction.）
被告SDBC根据1996英国仲裁法第73条的规定，认为仲裁一方未对仲裁庭缺乏实体仲裁权问题做出异议而是继续参加仲裁程序，视为放弃异议权利。原告认为，HH已经停止存续，因此HH未能出现也未通过代表出现在仲裁庭，因此弃权问题根本无从谈起。
法院认为：证据很明显地表明，原告从未通过代表出席仲裁庭，从未表示接受仲裁庭管辖。尽管Sinokor出席了，但是Sinokor明确提出了异议。因此，1996英国仲裁法第73条不能排除本案原告的的请求，原告不能被视为弃权。
2、仲裁庭管辖权之争？（Is the challenge brought under section 67 a jurisdictional challenge within the meaning of section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996?）
1996英国仲裁法第67条规定，如果一方认为仲裁庭缺乏实体管辖权，可申请法院对仲裁裁决进行质疑（challenge）。另外该法第30条仲裁庭有能力裁决自己是否享有管辖权的范围之规定：除非另有约定，仲裁庭可就下列问题，自己裁定是否享有管辖权：a、是否存在有效的仲裁协议；b、仲裁庭是否被合理组成；c……
("Competence of tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction" provides:
"(1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitraltribunal may rule on its own substantive jurisdiction, that is, as to—
(a) whether there is a valid arbitration agreement,
(b) whether the tribunal is properly constituted, and…)
被告认为，仲裁员和法院所面对的唯一问题是，根据BCA第105条第2款之规定[1]，HH是否通过Mr Chung作为受托人（"trustee"）的形式继续存续？这是一个HH在马绍尔群岛法律下法律状态的问题，而不是一个落入1996英国仲裁法之管辖权定义的问题。原告认为，该种对仲裁裁决的质疑(challenge)可基于1996英国仲裁法第30条第1款a项和b项。
法院认为，仲裁庭缺乏实体管辖权的主张可基于30条第1款a项或者b项。
法院论理如下：首先，根据协议第16条，一方在收到另一方书面告知通知后14天内应当指任己方仲裁员，未能按要求指定，则由对方指定的仲裁员独任审理。（On the receipt by one party of the nomination in writing of the other party' arbitrator, that party shall appoint their arbitrator within 14 days, failing which the decision of the single arbitrator appointed shall apply.）但是，在HH停止存续的情况下，该条将变得无法操作，这样以来，本案的独任仲裁员的指定是无效的，因此仲裁庭的组成不合理。其次，退一步说，如果这仲裁庭是否合理组成的分析有误的话，不妨换一种思路，从是否存在有效的仲裁协议去分析。那就是，如果HH已经停止存续了，那么被告就没有仲裁的相对方，即使可以说在协议一开始仲裁协议是有效存在的，但是一旦仲裁一方已经停止存续了，该仲裁协议将不再有效。如果有效的仲裁协议将不再存在，那么，仲裁就当然不会再开启。
3、HH是否存续之争？（Pursuant to section 105 of the Business Corporations Act of the Marshall Islands ("BCA"), did HH exist as a corporate entity on 28 October 2014?）（该公司位于马绍尔群岛）
BCA第105条[2]规定了公司在解散（dissolution）之后的收尾工作，包括为了收尾工作的继续存续、受托人以及法院对清算的监督。
另外根据BCA第13条，该法的解释和适用应当和美国特拉华州和其他州公司法针对相似问题的条款保持一致。（This Act shall be applied and construed to make the laws of the Republic, with respect to the subject matter hereof, uniform with laws of the State of Delaware and other states of the United States of America with substantially similar legislative provisions.）而特拉华州法典第279条规定[3]了该解散公司（dissolved corporations）的受托人的的指定、权力、义务等相关事项。
被告主张：Mr Chung作为受托人的，享有完全的权利处理公司未完成的事务（When that body corporate ceases to exist and is dissolved, a trustee is in place under section 105(2) with full power to do a range of things including, take care of "unfinished business", as expressly referred to in section 105 (2).） 原告主张：BCA第105条的意思清楚明白，即1）公司存续期间为解散条款（articles of dissolution）被签发之日起3年，到期公司将停止存续；2）从条款可知，该3年是为了特定的目的而存在的，这也是公司主管从解散（dissolution）之日起成为受托人的原因；3）三年期的例外是，在三年期内出现法律诉讼且诉讼未能在三年内完成，或者根据第3款，高院要求清算程序在法院的监督下继续。独任仲裁员认可了被告的主张。
法院认定：根据BCA第105条的解释，公司将在解散条款被签发之日起3年停止存续，且该期限并未被延展。特拉华州法典第279条虽然与第105条处理相同问题，但是，前者并未颠覆后者。因此，根据BCA第105条之规定，HH已于2014年10月停止存续了。
法院推理如下：第一，被告所提的观点（通过受托人的机制，公司将能够在解散条款被签发三年之后继续存续）会令人质疑3年期限的意义何在？(the interpretation advanced by counsel for SDBC for subsection (2) would mean that in effect the company would always continue in existence beyond the three years in sub paragraph (1) albeit through the mechanism of the trustees. This would have the result that there would appear to be no purposeto the three year limitation in subparagraph (1).) 第二，被告的另一主张（通过向法院申请，可以终止那种无限的受托关系）并没有证据支持；(there was no evidence to support the submission for SDBC that the otherwise indefinite trusteeship could be brought to an end by an application to the court.)第三，根据105条意思，很自然的可以得出公司将会存续三年的结论。(the natural meaning of the language in subparagraphs (1) and (2) is that under subparagraph (1) the company exists for a further three years to allow the company to be wound up.)
三、评述
本案的焦点是，根据BCA第105条的规定，原告方公司在2014年10月是否能被认为继续存续？如果原告方公司不能被认定为存续，那么先前其与被告约定的仲裁协议将由于缺少相对方而效力终止或者使得另一方将无法有效组成仲裁庭，最终都会导致仲裁程序无法开启。本案商事法院认定原告方公司在2014年10月已经不复存在，因此独任仲裁员对相关争议缺乏实质的管辖权（“substantive jurisdiction”）。由本案可知，当一方意欲提起仲裁程序时，密切注意另一方的法律状态尤为重要。如果在仲裁程序启动时，对方已经不具备参加仲裁程序的法律能力(legal capacity)，那么，仲裁协议将会被认为终止或者仲裁庭将被认为无法适当组成。
[1] (2) Trustees.
Upon the dissolution of anycorporation, or upon the expiration of the period of its corporate existence,the directors shall be trustees thereof, with full power to settle the affairs,collect the outstanding debts, sell and convey the property, real and personal,as may be required by the laws of the country where situated, prosecute and defendall such suits as may be necessary or proper for the purposes aforesaid,distribute the money and other property among the shareholders after paying oradequately providing for payment of its liabilities and obligations, and do allother acts which might be done by the corporation, before dissolution, that maybe necessary for the final settlement of the unfinished business of thecorporation. [emphasis added]
[2] Section 105 of the BCA "Winding up affairs of corporationafter dissolution" provides:
"(1) Continuation of corporationfor winding up.
All corporations, whether they expireby their own limitations or are otherwise dissolved, shall nevertheless becontinued for the term of three (3) years from such expiration or dissolutionas bodies corporate for the purpose of prosecuting and defending suits by oragainst them, and of enabling them gradually to settle and close theirbusiness, to dispose of and convey their property, to discharge theirliabilities, and to distribute to the shareholders any remaining assets, butnot for the purpose of continuing the business for which the corporation wasorganized. With respect to any action, suit, or proceeding begun by or againstthe corporation either prior to or within three (3) years after the date of itsexpiration or dissolution, and not concluded within such period, thecorporation shall be continued as a body corporate beyond that period for thepurpose of concluding such action, suit or proceeding and until any judgment,order, or decree therein shall be fully executed. [emphasis added]
(2) Trustees.
Upon the dissolution of anycorporation, or upon the expiration of the period of its corporate existence,the directors shall be trustees thereof, with full power to settle the affairs,collect the outstanding debts, sell and convey the property, real and personal,as may be required by the laws of the country where situated, prosecute anddefend all such suits as may be necessary or proper for the purposes aforesaid,distribute the money and other property among the shareholders after paying oradequately providing for payment of its liabilities and obligations, and do allother acts which might be done by the corporation, before dissolution, that maybe necessary for the final settlement of the unfinished business of thecorporation. [emphasis added]
(3) Supervision by court ofliquidation.
At any time within three (3) yearsafter the filing of the articles of dissolution, the High Court of theRepublic, in a special proceeding instituted under this subsection, upon thepetition of the corporation, or of a creditor, claimant, director, officer,shareholder, subscriber for shares, incorporator or the Attorney-General onbehalf of the Government of the Republic, may continue the liquidation of thecorporation under the supervision of the court in the Republic and may make allsuch orders as it may deem proper in all matters in connection with thedissolution or in winding up the affairs of the corporation, including theappointment or removal of a receiver, who may be a director, officer orshareholder of the corporation. [emphasis added]
[3] 279. Trustees or receivers for dissolved corporations;appointments; powers; duties "
When any corporation organized underthis chapter shall be dissolved in any manner whatever, the Court of Chancery,on application of any creditor, stockholder or director of the corporation, orany other person who shows good cause therefor, at any time, may either appoint1 or more of the directors of the corporation to be trustees, or appoint 1 ormore persons to be receivers, of and for the corporation, to take charge of thecorporation's property, and to collect the debts and property due and belongingto the corporation, with power to prosecute and defend, in the name of the corporation,or otherwise, all such suits as may be necessary or proper for the purposesaforesaid, and to appoint an agent or agents under them, and to do all otheracts which might be done by the corporation, if in being, that may be necessaryfor the final settlement of the unfinished business of the corporation. Thepowers of the trustees or receivers may be continued as long as the Court ofChancery shall think necessary for the purposes aforesaid. [emphasis added]