2020年1月21日，在Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd v Benxi Iron and Steel (Group) International Economic & Trading Co Ltd [2020] EWHC 324 (Comm)一案中，英格兰及威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法庭认定，如果存在根据1996《仲裁法》第57条或类似的（如LCIA规则第27条）更正申请，且该申请是实质性申请，则《仲裁法》第70条规定的撤裁申请的28天期限，若申请成功的，从裁决更正之日起算；若申请失败的，则从仲裁员决定维持该裁决且无需进一步澄清之日起算。本案构成实质性申请，而且属于程序违规导致裁决效力存在不确定性或模棱两可，因此法院裁定将本案发回原仲裁庭审理。
一、背景介绍
本溪钢铁作为买方，4家澳大利亚公司作为卖方，双方于2008年签订书面炼焦煤买卖协议。合同中的4位卖方中的前3位的身份无争议，第4位为ICRA NCA Pty Limited。合同中约定双方之间若出现争议则提交伦敦国际仲裁院（LCIA）进行仲裁，仲裁地为伦敦。
合同中的具体约定为Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Limited作为其他3位卖方的代理与本溪钢铁签订炼焦煤买卖协议，而其他3位卖方中的一员为ICRA NCA Pty Limited。
SELLER: Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Limited (ABN 69098156702) as agent for the Oaky Creek Joint Venturers (being Sumisho Coal Australia Pty Limited, Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd, Itochu Coal Resources Australia Pty Limited and ICRA NCA Pty Limited) and [sic] Level 38, Gateway, 1 Macquarie Place, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000, Australia (as the Seller)
卖方随缔约成立合资公司从事煤炭的开采等事宜，合资协议中前3位合同当事人与本溪钢铁的炼焦煤买卖协议的前3位卖方是一样的，但是合资协议的第4位当事人为ICRA OC Pty Limited。
之后买卖双方发生争议，提交LCIA仲裁，仲裁庭于2010年裁决认定本溪钢铁败诉，需对卖方承担巨额赔偿金、利息以及仲裁费用，而ICRA OC Pty Limited是合同的当事方，也是该仲裁裁决的受益人。然而，在裁决中仲裁庭并未阐明为什么炼焦煤买卖协议明确表明该合同中的第4位卖方为ICRA NCA Pty Limited，而仲裁庭却直接认定ICRA OC Pty Limited为第4位卖方。
二、本案以前的程序
1、沈阳中院拒绝承认与执行裁决
本溪钢铁并未履行裁决，而卖方在中国沈阳市中级人民法院申请承认和执行该仲裁裁决。沈阳市中院以本溪钢铁和ICRA OC Pty Limited之间不存在合同关系为由，认定二者之间不存在仲裁协议，因此由此产生的仲裁裁决没有事实和法律上的依据，因此拒绝承认和执行该裁决。
2、第一次请求原案仲裁员补充或更正裁决
卖方根据LCIA规则第27条向原案仲裁员提出补充或更正裁决的申请，申请其阐明为什么合同约定的是ICRA NCA Pty Limited是卖方中的一员，但仲裁庭却认定其为ICRA OC Pty Limited。然而，LCIA规则第27条规定，补充或更正裁决的申请需要在30日内提出，而除非有当事人之间对此另有约定或者法院批准超时申请，否则仲裁庭无权延长该期限。原案仲裁员认定仲裁庭的任务已经结束，以此驳回了卖方的申请。
3、请求英格兰高院延长期限
随后卖方向英格兰高院依照1996《仲裁法》第79条的规定，即法院的延长仲裁程序的有关期限的权力，提出延长该期限的申请（Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd v BenxiIron and Steel (Group) International Economic and Trading Co Ltd [2016] EWHC2022 (Comm)案），而法院裁定批准了延期。法官注意到，因为在他国依照《纽约公约》申请执行耗时很长，而基本上在承认和执行裁决的结果出来之前LCIA规则第27条规定的30日期限就会过期。依照1996《仲裁法》第79条，当事人在用尽仲裁机构或仲裁庭的救济之后可向法院申请延长期限，而若不延长期限将造成实质性不公正（a substantial injustice would otherwise be done），则法院可批准延长。法官认为卖方有权要求仲裁庭对裁决作出更正，以澄清其遗漏的为何ICRA OC Pty Limited，而非协议中原本载明的ICRA NCA Pty Limited是仲裁协议的一方的问题（the claimants would be entitled to request the tribunal to make corrections to the award that would clarify a matter that omission had left unclear or unambiguous），否则会给买方造成实质性不公，让其在中国申请裁决的承认和执行的时候也会因同样的原因而受阻（without correction, it is reasonable to assume that attempts to seek recognition and enforcement of the Award will be met by the same type of challenge elsewhere in the world as the Buyer has mounted in China）.
4、第二次请求原案仲裁员补充或更正裁决
获得该裁定后，卖方又向LCIA原案仲裁员申请作出补充或更正裁决，却又被驳回。
卖方主张ICRA NCA Pty Limited为打印错误（typographical error），实际上当事人应该是ICRA OC PtyLimited，而原合同的卖方签字人只是Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd，该公司作为卖方之一也是其他3个卖方的代理人。
原案仲裁员认为，之前仲裁庭批准除签字人以外的另外3个卖方加入仲裁程序，其中包括ICRA OC Pty Limited，而双方在仲裁期间从未提出过ICRA NCA Pty Limited与ICRA OC Pty Limited两个名称不同的问题。关键的一点在于，虽然合同双方的身份是一个事实问题，但是双方都未明确提出这个问题，而且仲裁庭在裁决中也未就这个问题作出具体的认定（However the question of whether ICRA NCA was mistakenly identified as a party in the Contract was, put simply, never addressed or considered by either the Parties or the Tribunal during the arbitration. Consequently, the Tribunal made no finding in the Award concerning that question.）。由此，因为LCIA规则第27条仅限于纠正计算错误、笔误、以及打印错误或类似性质的错误，而ICRA NCA的身份错误不仅仅是一个打印错误那么简单（Dealing with the allegedly mistaken reference to ICRA NCA in the Contract involves more than correcting a simple "typographical" mistake.），而是构成对裁决的补充而非更正（A finding as to the proper identity of a contracting party would be an addition to the Award, not a mere correction.）。
卖方还主张，根据上述[2016] EWHC 2022(Comm)期限延长案，法院对这个情况采取的是广义的解释，即LCIA规则第27条不仅限于纠正计算错误、笔误、以及打印错误或类似性质的错误，还允许对裁决作出更正以澄清事项，而不遗漏不清楚的地方。原案仲裁员则认为，即便如此，卖方所谓的澄清也涉及对ICRA NCA Pty Limited和ICRA OC PtyLimited之间的关系进行证据事实调查，而无论LCIA规则第27条的解释多么广义，都无法让仲裁庭开启附加的证据调查程序（However broadly the scope of Article 27.1 is construed, it does not contemplate additional evidentiary proceedings.），鉴于此，原案仲裁员并无法根据现有的庭审记录对二者之间的关系进行认定，因此不能批准卖方申请的补充或者更正裁决的请求。
三、本案法院认定
针对这个问题，卖方这次主张仲裁庭违反1996《仲裁法》第68条的规定，即仲裁程序存在严重的违规情形，在英格兰高院提起撤裁申请。主要依据是1996《仲裁法》第68条第2款第f项的规定，即仲裁程序中存在导致“裁决效力的不确定性或模棱两可”的情形，而造成仲裁严重违规。
Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant—...(f)uncertainty or ambiguity as to the effect ofthe award;...
1、以1996《仲裁法》第68条为由提出的撤裁申请是否逾期
1996《仲裁法》第70条第2款规定仲裁上的上诉或审查程序只有在用尽了仲裁程序内部的上诉或者审查之后，以及第57条的更正或者补充裁决的救济之后才得行使。第3款规定了，撤裁申请的时效为28天，具体起算点为仲裁裁决作出之日；或者若存在仲裁上的上诉或审查程序，则在该程序的申请人或上诉人收到该程序的结果通知之日。
在判断的标准上，根据K v S [2015] EWHC 1945 (Comm)案，更正或者补充裁决的申请需要是实质性申请（material application），而只有申请的更正措施能让当事人知晓其是否有撤裁事由的申请才构成实质性申请，而具体的起算点为裁决更正时。这种申请与当事人明知撤裁事由而提出的申请截然不同，后者的申请不依赖于任何在先的澄清申请的结果（What constitutes a material application for correction of an award is described in paragraph 24 of K v S, as being one "where the correction is necessary to enable the party to know whether he has grounds to challenge the award". Such an application stands in contrast to one where the grounds of challenge are already known, and are not dependent on the outcome of the application for clarification.）。
在本案中，卖方在LCIA规则第27条项下的申请对于本案的1996《仲裁法》第68条申请而言是实质相关的，这是因为前者可以使得仲裁员澄清裁决中是否存在不清楚之处，而这与1996《仲裁法》第68条第2款第f项的“导致仲裁效力的不确定性或模棱两可”（uncertainty or ambiguity as to the effect of the award）直接相关，其理由是若卖方的LCIA规则第27条项下的申请成功，则不会存在本案的撤裁依据。根据McLean Homes South East Ltd v Blackdale Ltd [2001] 11 WLUK 79案，28天期限的起算日期是仲裁员认定裁决有效且无需澄清之日。
此外，法院还从侧面论证其认定的正确性，即若非如此，则会鼓励当事人在提出第57条或同等申请时（如第68条申请），即提出撤裁申请，这将导致违反避免不必要的法律干涉的原则，以及避免不必要的费用的原则（在本案中即会导致卖方申请原案仲裁员进行澄清的时候就要同时向法院提起撤裁请求，否则撤裁请求的期限有过期的风险）。在第57条或同等的更正或者补充裁决的救济方面，其期限应类似第70条第3款的规定，从申请人知道申请结果为起算点，这样能让法律更有明确性。此外，这种认定并不会因为第57条的申请方面的不清而导致拖延时间，其原因是更正或者补充裁决的申请需要是实质性申请。
因此，法院认定起算点为第二次请求原案仲裁员补充或更正裁决被驳回、卖方收到该驳回决定之日。对于本案的申请，卖方提出的本案请求是及时提起的。
2、本案是否存在违反第68条第2款第f项的情况
一般而言，违反第68条的情形主要是仲裁庭严重违规的情形，但是法院指出违反的情形并不单纯局限于仲裁庭在审理案件过程中的行为违规，例如根据第68条第2款第g项，若当事人存在欺诈的情形，则即便仲裁庭在审理案件过程中完全合规，也可能导致当事人援引本条来进行撤裁（Section 68 is not, however, confined exclusively to cases in which the tribunal has gone wrong in its conduct of the arbitration, if that is understood to mean that the tribunal has done something which it should not have done in the circumstances which were presented to it. Thus, for example, an application could potentially be made under section 68(2)(g) if the award had been procured by fraud of the parties, without the tribunal having gone wrong in the sense that I have described.）。
在本案中，裁决的效力的确存在不确定性或模棱两可，即本案裁决的关于ICRA OC PtyLimited到底以什么依据而成为胜诉方方面存在不确定性或模棱两可——即到底是由于（1）合同当事人是ICRA OC PtyLimited，而非合同中载明的ICRA NCA PtyLimited，因此导致其作为卖方的一员胜诉；还是（2）因为本溪钢铁由于没有及时提出ICRA OC Pty Limited不是合同一方，在仲裁程序中并未对仲裁庭的管辖权提出异议，从而构成管辖权异议的默示弃权和对ICRA OC PtyLimited构成仲裁一方的默示同意而依照1996《仲裁法》第73条丧失异议权（What had accordingly manifested itself was uncertainty or ambiguity that the Award was holding that ICRA OC was entitled to recover, as one of the Claimants, on the basis either, a) that it was the actual party to the Oaky Contract, or b) because the Defendant had waived its rights to claiman objection to the claim by ICRA OC, on the basis that it was not party to the arbitration clause, because that would have been an objection to the Arbitrator's jurisdiction which was not raised by the Defendant in the arbitration, and which by reason of section 73 of the Arbitration Act was no longer open to it.）。
此外，在不明确性这一点上，[2016] EWHC 2022 (Comm)期限延长案中并未指出该不明确性是否局限于裁决的说理部分，但是本案法官认为从该案全文来看，原案的观点应当是指裁决本身的效力不确定或模棱两可（I consider that this conclusion is consistent with that reached by Knowles J. While it is correct to say that Knowles J did not have to decide whether there was an uncertainty or ambiguity in the effect of the Award, as opposed to its reasoning – because Article 27 did not impose that as a requirement – I do not consider that he was saying that the uncertainty or ambiguity which he found there to have been was confined to a defect of reasoning. On the contrary, I consider that paragraphs 40 to 41 of his judgment, in particular, suggest that he regarded that the uncertainty or ambiguity extended to the effect of the Award.）。虽然英格兰法官和律师对该LCIA裁决的含义和效力本身可能不会有不明确的理解，即不产生裁决的不确定或模棱两可，但外国的承认和执行该裁决的法院则可能会有误解，因此裁决仍可能是不确定或模棱两可的（An award may be uncertain or ambiguous, notwithstanding that English lawyers would agree as to its meaning and effect, if it is capable of being misunderstood by an enforcing court. That the Award in this case was so capable is demonstrated by what occurred before the Shenyang court.）。
法院还考虑到若出现这种情况就可以撤裁的话，会有大量的撤裁案件出现，滥用该机制，因此当事人有举证责任来证明裁决效力不确定或模棱两可会导致实质性不公正（substantial injustice）。在本案中，卖方还可以证明存在影响裁决的严重违规情况，即裁决效力的不确定性或模棱两可给卖方导致中国法院拒绝执行裁决，因此给卖方造成了实质性不公正，并且因为其他国家的法院可能也会因此而拒绝承认和执行该裁决，因此这种实质性不公正将一直存在（ In my judgment, it has caused substantial injustice, in that it has led to the refusal of the Shenyang court to enforce the Award, and it will continue to cause substantial injustice, by reason of the real risk that other courts will refuse enforcement on a similar basis. Inote that Knowles J considered the present to be a clear case in which there would be substantial injustice done, if he had not extended time for the application then before him, which was itself designed to provide clarity and remove the ambiguity in the Award – see paragraph 38 of his judgment. For these reasons, I will remit the Award pursuant tosection 68(2)(f) of the Arbitration Act. I will hear the parties in relation to the exact form of the order which should be made embodying that remission.）。
鉴于此，法院将本案发回原仲裁庭重审。
四、评论
本案耗时较长，主要原因之一也在于买方并未预先对对方当事人不符这一点提出异议。然而，本案可能涉及复杂的考虑因素和策略因素，而无论如何都导致了买房在仲裁败诉之后，由于裁决中出现的瑕疵，本案裁决被拒绝执行，并且卖方耗费大量时间精力申请未果，而且未来的新裁决是否会受沈阳中院拒绝承认和执行裁决的裁定的既判力的影响也是一个未知数。
因此，仲裁一方当事人在面对这种情况的时候必须慎重并且在仲裁程序中明确提出异议，否则在日后可能导致获得胜诉裁决但无法执行，且有遭受讼累的可能。