2019年5月22日，在ZCCM Investments Holdings Plcv Kansanshi Holdings Plc [2019] EWHC 1285 (Comm) 一案中，英格兰及威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法庭判决驳回赞比亚国企作为申请人的撤裁申请，其理由是如果仲裁裁决的决定（decision）实质上是一项程序上的裁定（a procedural ruling），而不是一项裁决（award），则不得依1996《仲裁法》第68条对该决定提出异议。本案仲裁庭认为申请人未能就虚假陈述或损失达成初步证明（a prima facie case），因而作出决定驳回了其申请。法院认定该决定为程序性裁定(ruling)而非实体性的裁决（award），因此不得撤销。本案仲裁庭的裁决说理过程中有部分瑕疵，但由于该决定被认定为裁定而非裁决，因此法院认为其对于案件的实质并无影响。
一、背景介绍
本案申请人ZCCM Investments Holdings Plc也是仲裁案的申请人，是赞比亚国企和政府的半官方机构。
本案被申请人Kansanshi Holdings Plc（KHL）也是仲裁案的被申请人，是FQ集团的一部分。KHL是FQMF公司的间接全资子公司，而FQMF是FQML的全资子公司。 FQMF承担了FQ集团的全球财政职能。
Kansanshi Mining PLC（KMP）是一家矿业公司，拥有赞比亚最大的铜矿之一。被申请人拥有KMP股本的80％并控制KMP的管理，其余20％股份由申请人拥有。KMP，申请人和被申请人之间的关系的依据之一是2001年的《经修订和重述的股东协议》（Amended and Restated Shareholders' Agreement），依照该协议KHL控制管理KMP。
在2006年至2014年期间，KMP不时向FQMF进行了数次转账。申请人主张这些是现金储备的存款。在2009年6月至2014年3月之间，转账数额可能达到了22.38亿美元。款项应在2014年底2015年初偿还，FQMF在30日伦敦银行同业拆借利率（LIBOR利率）下向KMP支付了利息。
申请人发起了仲裁，主张该转账违反股东协议和违反善管义务（fiduciary duty）。申请人还主张欺诈，理由是从2007年开始，被申请人不诚实地向申请人歪曲了转账的性质。申请人的进一步或替代性的仲裁请求包括违反《经修订和重述的股东协议》，串谋以非法手段伤害，诱使违反善管义务，不诚实协助和侵权。申请人主张被申请人对转让的性质和款项的用途做了虚假陈述， KMP承受了损失，理由是根据转账的真实性质而言本应支付利率应该更高。申请人主张的损害赔偿为被申请人应支付额外利息（“至少在LIBOR利率上增加5％”），或者返还因违反善管义务而产生的利润。金额估计为2.67亿美元。
由于被申请人对KMP有控制权，此类主张只得作为股东派生请求提出。依照普通法规定，申请人必须获得仲裁庭批准才能提出股东派生请求。本案仲裁是根据2010年《贸易法委员会（UNCITRAL）仲裁规则》进行的，适用的法律是赞比亚法律，该法纳入了英格兰普通法，适用英格兰2006年《公司法》之前的股东派生请求。
为了获得批准，申请人需要对其主张达成初步证明（a prima facie case）。为此，仲裁庭指出“为了达成初步证明，ZCCM需要证明，在对事实存疑时对其作出有利推定时，其代表KMP提出的这一主张具有实际成立的前景。”（"in order to make out aprima facie case ZCCM needs to demonstrate that, giving it the benefit of thedoubt on disputed issues of fact, the claim that it wishes to bring on KMP'sbehalf has a realistic prospect of success.）
仲裁庭认为申请人就陈述达成初步证明（ZCCM had established a prima facie case thatthe relevant representations were made），并且就FQMF使用了款项达成了初步证明（ZCCM had established a prima facie case that the relevant representations were made. At paragraph 54 it accepted that a primafacie case had been made out that FQMF used the monies or some part of them otherwise than on deposit and that it had been acknowledged that some part were used by FQMF）。但是，仲裁庭认为，“ [ZCCM]还必须就（i）作出的陈述的虚假性达成初步证明，以及（ii）结果KMP承受损失的初步证明。”（"… [ZCCM] would succeed at trial [it] also has to demonstrate a prima facie case as to both (i) the falsity of the representations that were made and (ii) the loss that wassuffered by KMP as a result."）
仲裁庭经过复杂的分析后决定，申请人未能就虚假陈述或损失达成初步证明（a prima facie case）。申请人立刻根据1996《仲裁法》第68条对裁决提起异议。
申请人主张，仲裁庭没有处理完毕许多争议点，并且认定某个问题不存在争议并在此基础上继续进行仲裁程序是错误的。申请人进一步指出，被申请人没有披露某些文件，从而以欺诈方式获取了仲裁裁决。
二、法院认定
申请人的主张被驳回。
1、当事人无权依照第68条对仲裁庭的决定提出异议
法官首先处理的是法条适用性问题，即是否可以依第68条对仲裁庭的决定提出异议——只有仲裁庭的决定必须是裁决（award）的情况下，申请人才可以依照第68条提出异议。因此有必要分析该决定的性质。
法条：
68.裁决异议：严重的违规行为。
（1）仲裁程序的当事方可以（在通知另一方和仲裁庭的情况下）以存在影响仲裁庭、程序或裁决的严重不当行为为由，向法院申请对裁决提出异议。一方可能会丧失异议权（请参阅第73条），而申请权则受限于第70条第2款和第3款的规定。
（2）严重不当行为是指法院认为对申请人造成或将导致实质性不公正的下列一种或多种不正当行为——
（a）仲裁庭未能遵守第33条（仲裁庭的一般职责）；
……
（d）仲裁庭未处理向其提交的所有争议点；
68.—Challenging the award: serious irregularity.
(1) A party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) apply to the court challenging an award in the proceedings on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award. A party may lose the right to objec t(see section 73) and the right to apply is subject to the restrictions insection 70(2) and (3).
(2) Serious irregularity means an irregularity ofone or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant—
(a) failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33 (general duty of tribunal);
……
(d) failure by the tribunal to deal with all the issues that were put to it;
70异议或上诉：补充条款。
（2）如申请人或上诉人没有首先用尽以下救济，则不得提出申请或上诉——
（a）任何可用的上诉或复议的仲裁程序，以及
（b）第57条规定的任何可用手段（更正裁决或附加裁决）。
（3）任何申请或上诉都必须在裁决之日起28日内提出，或如果有任何上诉或复议的仲裁程序，则必须在通知申请人或上诉人该程序结果之日起28日内提出。
70Challenge or appeal: supplementary provisions.
(2)An application or appeal may not be brought if the applicant or appellant has not first exhausted—
(a)any available arbitral process of appeal or review, and
(b)any available recourse under section 57 (correction of award or additional award).
(3)Any application or appeal must be brought within 28 days of the date of the award or, if there has been any arbitral process of appeal or review, of the date when the applicant or appellant was notified of the result of that process.
法院认为本案涉案的决定是一个程序性的裁定。其参考的依据包括Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott [2008] EWHC2684 (Comm), [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 162, [2008] 11 WLUK 96, Enterprise InsuranceCo Plc v U-Drive Solutions (Gibraltar) Ltd [2016] EWHC 1301 (QB), [2016] 6 WLUK324 and Exmar BV v National Iranian Tanker Co (The Trade Fortitude) [1992] 1Lloyd's Rep. 169, [1991] 7 WLUK 277。其考虑的重点包括：
a）法院肯定会重视实体，而不仅仅是以来形式： Emmott at paragraph 18 (byconcession); Russell on Arbitration (24th edition, 2015) at[6-003].
b）因此，支持该决定为裁决的结论的一个因素是，该决定是否具有终局性，即该决定处分了提交仲裁的事项，以使仲裁庭完全地或相对于该争议点或主张其职能已经履行完毕：Cargill at 5, TheSmaro at 247; Enterprise Insurance at [39]。
c）决定所涉及的问题的性质也很重要。当事人的实体权利义务很可能以裁决的形式处理，而纯粹与程序问题有关的决定则很可能不是裁决。Brake at [25], TheSmaro at 247; Emmott at [19-20], Cargill at5, The Trade Fortitude at 175。
d）但是形式还是有用的。仲裁庭自己对该决定的描述对此并不是终局性的，但的确是与此相关的：175 Emmott的The Trade Fortitude [19-20]。
e）仲裁庭裁决的理性接受者的看法：Emmott at [18]; Ranko p 4。
f）理性接受者可能会考虑相关决定的客观属性。其内容包括仲裁庭对决定的说明，所用语言的形式，仲裁庭表达其推理的详细程度：Emmott at [19-20]; Uttam Galva Steels at [29]; The Trade Fortitude at175; The Smaro at 247。
g）虽然法律渊源没有明确表示，但法官也认为：
i. 理性接受者还应考虑以下事项：该决定是否符合任何其规则中裁决的形式要求。
ii.当做出决定时的所有当事各方和仲裁庭可获取的信息的重点都在于理性接收者。因此，作出决定的程序中的背景或语境也可能是相关的。这可能包括仲裁庭是否打算作出裁决：The Smaro at247, Ranko p 4。
a) The Court will certainly give real weight to the question of substance and not merely to form: Emmott at paragraph 18 (by concession); Russellon Arbitration (24th edition, 2015) at [6-003].
b) Thus,one factor in favour of the conclusion that a decision is an award is if the decision is final in the sense that it disposes of the matters submitted to arbitration so as to render the tribunal functus officio, eitherentirely or in relation to that issue or claim: Cargill at5, The Smaro at 247; Enterprise Insurance at[39].
c) The nature of the issues with which the decision deals is significant. The substantive rights and liabilities of parties are likely to be dealt with in the form of an award whereas a decision relating purely to procedural issues is more likely not to be an award. Brake at [25], TheSmaro at 247; Emmott at [19-20], Cargill at5, The Trade Fortitude at 175.
d) There is a role however for form. The arbitral tribunal's own description of the decision is relevant, although it will not be conclusive in determining its status: The Trade Fortitude at 175 Emmott at[19-20].
e) It may also be relevant to consider how a reasonable recipient of the tribunal's decision would have viewed it: Emmott at [18]; Ranko p4.
f) A reasonable recipient is likely to consider the objective attributes of the decision relevant. These include the description of the decision by the tribunal, the formality of the language used, the level of detail in which the tribunal has expressed its reasoning: Emmott at [19-20]; Uttam Galva Steels at [29]; The Trade Fortitude at175; The Smaro at 247.
g) While the authorities do not expressly say so I also form the view that:
i. A reasonable recipient would also consider such matters as whether the decision complies with the formal requirements for an award under any applicable rules.
ii. The focus must be on a reasonable recipient with all the information that would have been available to the parties and to the tribunal when the decision was made. It follows that the background or context in the proceedings in which the decision was made is also likely to be relevant. This may include whether the arbitral tribunal intended to make an award: The Smaro at 247, Ranko p4.
法官认为，该裁决并未决定与主张有关的实质性问题。不是对任何主张的最终决定，而是对程序性问题的决定（股东派生请求本身就是程序性工具，而该决定是允许提出这种形式的权利要求的批准）本身就属于仲裁庭的裁量权因素。最重要的是，仲裁尚未结束，仲裁庭也未完全履行职责。在此之前，还必然有对实体进行的裁决，而KMP自身还可能会提出赔偿请求，尽管就目前的情况而言这不太可能（被申请人KHL实际上KMP控制）。（the Ruling does not decide an issue of substance relating to the claim. Itis not a final decision on the merits of any of the claims. It is a decision on a procedural issue (a derivative claim being itself a procedural device, and this being a decision on leave to bring that form of claim) which has a discretionary element. The bottom line is that the arbitration is not over and the Tribunal is not functus. Before that can happen there will have to be an award on the merits. It is possible that the claim could be pursued by KMP,although as matters stand (with KHL being de facto in control of KMP)that is obviously unlikely）
就所采取的形式而言，该决定虽然不是一个简单的程序令，也不是通常的载有数个仲裁请求以及数百万英镑的赔偿金的冗长而详尽的文件。（As to the form of the Ruling,it is certainly true that the document which emerged was not a simple procedural order. However, nor is it in its form what one would expect to seeby way of Award in a multi-million pound multi-claim arbitration）这种形式更像是一个裁定（ruling）而不是一个裁决（award）。
虽然在该决定里由说理部分，但是从笔录中可以看出，即使是对程序令而言当事人都期待仲裁庭会给出理由，事实确实也如此。这些说理过程还有些压缩，没有针对每个提出的要求进行逐点分析，而是对这些问题进行了“分类”，解释了仲裁庭认为那些是明确的途径。这与关于复杂程序问题的裁定完全一致；而这种情况很少出现在裁决中，法律渊源也表明如此。（Certainly, it does include reasons; but here one can see from the transcript that the parties were expecting reasons even with a procedural order as indeed is often the case, as can be seen in the authorities. The other formalities having been included is hardly surprising once one is dealing with reasons. Further those reasons are,as I shall indicate below, somewhat compressed. There is not a point by point analysis of each claim raised. Rather there is a "triaging" of the issues, explaining what the Tribunal sees as the clear path through. This is entirely consistent with a Ruling on a complex procedural issue; it is less so with an award — as the authorities considered below on the question of dealing with all issues, and the arguments deployed in the arbitration claims indicate.）
关于说理及其长度，本案中非常杰出和经验丰富的仲裁庭明知其对于实体的裁决一经确定就很可能受到异议，如果申请人的主张在最终裁决中被驳回，而仲裁庭拒绝了股东派生请求的申请，则该裁决很可能会因仲裁庭在此基础上错误或不当行为而受到异议。因此，仲裁庭就如何进行履行其职责向当事各方提供一些指导显然是适当的；尽管该指导并不像说理清楚的裁决那样完整。因此，本案决定的形式更像是裁定而不是裁决。（As for the inclusion of reasons, and their length (ie the fact that there were reasons at all), one should perhaps also bear in mind that this very distinguished and experienced Tribunal will have had well in mind that the substance of this document might well be the subject of challenge once the arbitration was determined. If ZCCM's claim were dismissed in a final award, the Tribunal having refused an application to permit a derivative claim, the award might well be challenged on the basis that the Tribunal had erred or misconducted itself in approaching the matter on that basis. It was therefore plainly appropriate for the Tribunal to give some guidance to the parties as to how the exercise had been conducted; albeit that that guidance was not as full as a reasoned award. The form of the Ruling therefore resonates best as a ruling, not as an award.）
此外，依照在仲裁庭庭审上的辩论，若仲裁庭打算作出裁决，则极有可能仲裁庭也会称其为裁决（award）。（in the light of the debate as to the nature of the decision, if the Tribunal had intended to produce an Award it seems overwhelmingly likely that it would have called it that）鉴于仲裁庭与当事方之间的辩论，合理的接受者应期望该文件不是裁决书，并且如果与此相反仲裁庭作出裁决，则仲裁庭会表明这是裁决。换言之，当事人的预期是仲裁庭作出说理的裁定，这也就是仲裁庭所作出的。（The reasonable recipient, in the light of the debate between the Tribunal and the parties would itself have expected the document not to be an award and that if, contrary to initial indications, an award was being produced, the Tribunal would have said so. Or,to put it the other way around, what was expected was an order with reasons;that is what the Tribunal on its face produced. That is what a reasonable recipient would read the Ruling as being.）
因此，申请人不得行使第68条所规定的异议权。
2、即使第68条适用，当事人的异议也无法成功
法院认为，即使考虑第68条的异议可以适用的可能，依照第68条提起的异议也无法成功。
申请人依照第68条提出以下主张
争议点1：仲裁庭未处理申请人主张的被申请人向其明确陈述的FQMF持有款项的方式方面的主张。
争议点2：仲裁庭未处理被申请人违反善管义务的主张。
争议点3：仲裁庭未能处理申请人提出的违反《经修订和重述的股东协议》的主张
争议点4：仲裁庭未处理申请人提出的有关FQMF向被申请人支付的利率的主张
争议点5：仲裁庭错误地认定KMP的款项已按要求偿还这点上无争议并基于此进行了仲裁程序，和/或仲裁庭未能处理被申请人的款项并非总是可用的问题
Issue1: Failure to deal with the allegation that KHL expressly represented to ZCCM how FQMF was holding the monies.
Issue2: Failure to address the issue of breach of fiduciary duties.
Issue 3:Tribunal's failure to deal with the issue of breach of the ASHA
Issue 4:Failure to deal with the case put to it by ZCCM in relation to the rate ofinterest paid by FQMF to KMP
Issue 5:The Tribunal wrongly proceeded on the basis that it was undisputed that KMP'smonies were repaid as and when required and/or failed to address the issue that KMP's monies were not always readily available
对于此，法院主要基于以下三个理由予以驳回
第一、仲裁庭无不处理申请人提出的特定问题的情形。法律渊源清楚地表明，仲裁庭的裁定必须以建设性而非破坏性的方式理解。（It must also, as the authorities make clear, be read constructively rather than destructively.）法院援引了Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raytheon Systems Ltd [2014]EWHC 4375 (TCC), [2014] 12 WLUK 774案中Akenhead给出的说理，“即便仲裁庭没有处理到每一个被视为“争议点”的问题，这也并不导致其没有处理完毕所有争议点。若仲裁庭对于事实或结论的决定中并未产生某争议点，则该争议点即已经被仲裁庭所“处理”。以此，仲裁庭可通过决定逻辑上的前置争议点来处理该争议点。”（"A tribunal does not fail to deal with issues if it does not answer every question that qualifies as an 'issue'. It can 'deal with' an issue where that issue does not arise in view of its decisions on the facts or its conclusions. A tribunal may deal with an issue by so deciding a logically anterior point."）鉴于申请人提出了许多相互重叠的主张，对于仲裁庭而言，处理其中的可能合并或者拆分不同主张的共同因素非常合理。仲裁庭处理到了所有争议点，并且其结论也很明确。（What the Tribunal did was to consider the main ground first and in detail, and then to look at whether anything survived if that failed, given the overlap between the cases being run. It must be borne in mind that, as I have noted earlier, the case was puton a plethora of bases. It was a perfectly sensible way of dealing with the issues for the Tribunal to adopt the course which it did. There was no failure to deal with the issue. It was dealt with clearly, and the conclusion was clear.）仲裁庭的做法有所缩减，并不总是和往常一样清楚地解释其推理，但仲裁庭确实处理了相关问题，只是其说理过程对于外行并不友好。（It is fair to say that theTribunal does not explain this reasoning as clearly as it might have done. Its reasoning jumps straight from ZCCM's case to the counterfactual, without explaining where in the loss analysis ZCCM's problem lies. However, it is on careful reading quite clear what the Tribunal was saying, and that it was dealing with the relevant question. There is therefore no failure to deal withthe case as put; nor are the authorities as to inferences from inadequate reasoning apt. The reasoning is robust; the expression of that reasoning is just not very user friendly.）
第二，仲裁庭没有以当事双方之间对事项无争议为基础错误地推进程序。仲裁庭可能稍微夸大了共同点，但这对案件并无实质性影响（The Tribunal may have slightly overstated the common ground, but not to any material effect.）。
第三，即使假设裁定是裁决，并且仲裁庭未能处理某些问题，但是申请人也没有用尽其可用的上诉或复议的仲裁程序，即根据《UNCITRAL规则》第39条向仲裁庭申请追加裁决这一救济措施。因此，申请人未能穷尽仲裁程序中的救济，因此其第68条的异议权被第70条的有关规定禁止行使。（It would then follow that the provisions of Article 39 would be applicable and that ZCCM should have and did not seek to invoke Article 39, with the result that any claim under s. 68 is barred by the operation of section 70.）
此外，法院经分析认为，申请人没有证明被申请人是通过欺诈而获取该仲裁决定。
法院驳回申请，仲裁程序继续进行。
三、评论
本案中，需要证明申请人是否能初步证明（a prima facie case）被申请人存在虚假陈述或其自身存在损失来获取股东派生请求。仲裁庭对该问题的决定被法院认为是程序性的裁定而非实体上的裁决，因此其中的说理不全并不导致裁定的无效，从而规避了1996《仲裁法》第68条的撤裁规则的适用。但为了判决的安全性，法院进而分析了假设第68条适用的情况下的情形。法院基于有利于仲裁的推定，认为应当对仲裁庭的决定进行建设性理解，而本案中涉及重叠争议点，其中处理了一些之后不处理其它这一做法被法院认为是合理，而且法院还认为对某些争议点的共同点的处理瑕疵并不影响案件本质，因此并不一定构成撤销该决定的理由。此外本身仲裁规则中有相应的追加裁决的救济措施，未能用尽该救济，也不符合1996《仲裁法》第70条的规定，因此驳回申请。本案中，法院的说理过程的周密性，仲裁庭的“决定”是否草率，是否导致有损案件的实体，以及UNCITRAL规则中的追加裁决制度在1996《仲裁法》语境下的有效性都值得我们深入研究。