2020年4月6日，在Alexander Brothers Ltd (Hong Kong Sar) v Alstom Transport SA [2020] EWHC 814 (Comm)一案中，当事人以违反公共政策为由在英格兰申请撤销法院作出的予以执行仲裁裁决的裁定。英格兰和威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法庭认为根据《民事诉讼规则》第35.1条和1996《仲裁法》第103条，需要有合理的必要的专家证据表明如果履行了仲裁裁决中的债务则根据法国刑法可能产生什么后果，因此以公共政策方面的考量为由批准被告提交专家证据以证明履行裁决可能导致被告在法国会产生什么后果。
一、背景介绍
原告之前仲裁胜诉，并在英格兰法院获得执行裁决的裁定。被告申请撤销法院作出的予以执行仲裁裁决的裁定，并根据《民事诉讼规则》第35.1条（专家证据应限于合理必要的证据）申请法院允许其为此提供专家证据。
第一被告是在一家法国注册的公司，第二被告是一家在英格兰注册的公司，它们都是一家从事铁路机车供应和库存的集团的全资子公司。原告是一家香港公司，原告根据一份《顾问协议》项下的仲裁条款，于日内瓦在国际商会仲裁院（ICC）提起仲裁程序并胜诉，裁决认定被告方依照该条款需要对原告支付款项。
之后，原告在法国法院申请执行裁决，并获得了执行该裁决的裁定。然后被告在法通过提起了上诉，巴黎上诉法院认为若执行该裁决则有违公共政策，理由是法院认为有迹象表明，被告之前向原告支付的款项被原告用来贿赂中国公职人员。巴黎上诉法院以此为由拒绝承认和执行该裁决。
之后原告提出单方面申请在英格兰执行该裁决，英格兰法院作出批准执行该裁决的裁定，被告则申请撤销该裁定。
在本案听证会之前，被告方申请法院批准其提出专家证据，以证明若执行该裁决，向原告支付任何款项，则会在法国刑法上产生后果——被告可能在法国面临严厉的刑事指控，有被提起刑事诉讼的明显风险。
二、法院认定
1、《民事诉讼规则》第35.1条
《民事诉讼规则》第35.1条规定，
限制专家证据的责任
35.1
专家证据应限于解决诉讼程序所合理需要的证据。
Duty to restrict expert evidence
35.1
Expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.
法院认为，《民事诉讼规则》第35.1条的根本政策目标在于减少专家证据的不当使用而导致诉讼拖延。在这方面的合理要求是，依照《民事诉讼规则》的根本目的，法院不应为了节省时间和诉讼费用起见而过度排除专家证据。
具体而言，法院注意到在British Airways Plc v Spencer [2015] EWHC 2477 (Ch)案中有如下规则：
i）该规则的基本政策目标是减少不当使用专家以支持案件的发生率；
ii）根据民事诉讼的根本目标所表明的合理要求，法院不应过分热衷于排除证据以节省时间和成本；
iii）在各案中法院都需要做出判断，并且在做出判断时，法院有必要考虑，证据是否是必要的（从某种意义上来说，如果没有证据就无法做出决定）或是该证据与案件只是微弱相关因此法院可以在无该证据的情况下即能定案，在这种情况下，在这个问题上法院必须进行权衡，并评估其采纳证据的程度；
iv）在进行权衡时，法院应准备考虑各种不同的因素，包括诉的标的额、一方胜诉则对另一方的影响，由谁来支付委托证据的费用、以及是否会造成任何拖延（如果有的话）（尤其是可能导致撤消审判日期的延误）；
v）只有在审判时，实际上需要确定哪些问题才会浮现出来。因此，目前不能说没有必要为解决诉讼程序而对任何特别提出的争议点作出认定。必须注意的是，如果的确有理由需要专家证据来解决一个争议点，那么也将有理由需要其来解决诉讼程序问题；
vi）问题在于证据是否的确对法院有助（首先推定此类证据对于任何提出的争议点而言都不是必要的），并且如果该证据可能有用，则法院必须根据应适用的原则来决定该证据是否适用《民事诉讼规则》第35.1条。
i) the underlying policy objective of this rule is to reduce the incidence of inappropriate use of experts to bolster cases (at [22]);
ii) what is reasonably required is informed by the overriding objective and the court should not be over-zealous in excluding evidence in order to save time and cost (at [25]);
iii) a judgment needs to be made in every case and, in making that judgment, it is relevant to consider whether, on the one hand, the evidence is necessary (in the sense that a decision cannot be made without it) or whether it is of very marginal relevance with the court being well able to decide the issue without it, in which case a balance has to be struck and the proportionality of its admission assessed (at [63]);
iv) in striking that balance, the court should be prepared to take into account disparate factors including the value of the claim, the effect of a judgment either way on the parties, who is to pay for the commissioning of the evidence on each side and the delay, if any, which the production of such evidence would entail (particularly delay which might result in the vacating of a trial date) (at [63]);
v) it is only at the trial that it will become apparent what issues actually need to be decided. Accordingly, it cannot be said, at present, that it will not be necessary to decide any particular pleaded issue in order to resolve the proceedings. It must follow that, if expert evidence is reasonably required to resolve a pleaded issue, it will also be reasonably required to resolve the proceedings (at [64]);
vi) the question is whether the court would be assisted by such evidence (assuming in the first place that such evidence is not necessary to any pleaded issue) and if the evidence might be helpful, the Court must determine whether it then falls within CPR 35.1 in accordance with the applicable principles.
2、撤销申请中的专家证据
1996《仲裁法》第103条规定：
103.拒绝承认或执行裁决。
（1）除以下情况外，不得拒绝承认或执行《纽约公约》裁决。……
（3）如果裁决涉及不得通过仲裁解决的事项，或者承认或执行裁决将违反公共政策，则也可以拒绝承认或执行裁决。
103.Refusal of recognition or enforcement.
(1)Recognition or enforcement of a New York Convention award shall not be refused except in the following cases.
…
(3)Recognition or enforcement of the award may also be refused if the award is in respect of a matter which is not capable of settlement by arbitration, or if it would be contrary to public policy to recognise or enforce the award.
法院在撤销申请的听证会上必须对执行裁决是否违反公共政策作出认定，而如果的确如此，则应决定其是否应根据1996《仲裁法》第103条行使自由裁量权——可以（may）以拒绝执行该裁决（In my view, this court cannot say that it will not be necessary for the court at the May Hearing to address the second stage of section 103(3), the issue of whether to exercise its discretion. The court must therefore ask whether it is necessary for there to be expert evidence before that issue can be resolved or if the evidence is not necessary, whether it would be of assistance to the court in resolving that issue. (On the principles referred to above, it must follow that if expert evidence is reasonably required to resolve the issue of the exercise of the discretion it is also reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.)）。
在自由裁量权的问题上，法院必须询问在解决该问题之前是否有必要提供专家证据，或若非必要，则该专家证据是否有助法院解决该问题（Applying the approach in Spencer in order to decide whether the evidence is reasonably required, the court has to carry out a balancing exercise having regard to the factors such as the value of the claim, the effect of a judgment either way on the parties, who is to pay for the commissioning of the evidence on each side and the delay, if any, which the production of such evidence would entail (particularly delay which might result in the vacating of a trial date).）。
在权衡中应考虑的因素包括：
i)本案法院不能认定本案并无行使第103条规定的裁量权的必要；
ii)法律上对自由裁量权的范围并未有明确界定，而在此案中法国刑法的规定对这个问题可能会有所帮助；
iii)本案若使用专家证据则其费用会是适度的；
iv)在本案中专家证据的范围不会过于宽泛以至于使得案件偏离重点；
v)如果执行裁决，则其后的法国刑事诉讼对各方当事人的意义以及对被告方的影响；
vi)行使裁量权不会影响本案的撤裁申请的时效。
In this case the factors which the court weighs are as follows:
i)the discretion under section 103(3) is separate from the first stage; this court cannot conclude that the need for such discretion to be exercised will not arise;
ii)if the court has to exercise its discretion, that discretion is not circumscribed by the Act and it seems to me that the position under French criminal law in the circumstances will or may assist;
iii)the cost of the expert evidence is very modest at some €8000, although I note that the claimant submits that the expert evidence in response is likely to be fuller and therefore more expensive;
iv)even if the expert report in response is more extensive, the extent of the expert evidence on this issue is not in my view likely to be so extensive such as to create a "confusing distraction"; it is confined to a narrowpoint of French criminal law;
v)the significance of the proceedings to the parties and the implications for the defendants if enforcement is permitted, namely that the defendants may be faced with a choice as to whether to comply with the English court order or face committing an offence under French law; as the offence relates to bribery, this may well have reputational significance which is broader than the penalties imposed by French law;
vi)it was accepted for the claimant that were this expert evidence to be allowed, thus requiring a need to obtain responsive evidence, it would not affect the timing of the May Hearing.
法院在权衡这些因素之后，认为有合理理由需要专家证据来解决本案涉及的问题。
三、评论
本案在宏观上涉及当事人履行裁决则可能导致其在其他国家违法，而以此主张执行裁决会违反公共政策，以此申请拒绝承认和执行裁决。具体而言，本案涉及其中的具体证明履行裁决则将如何导致违反公共政策这方面。
在这方面英格兰《民事诉讼规则》第35.1条的基本原则是限制专家证据，而本案由于是在英格兰进行执行，而被告方提出的证明履行裁决导致违反法国法则似乎与英格兰的公共政策并无关系。然而，法院仍然考虑了种种因素，特别是1996《仲裁法》第103条中的在存在公共政策事由的情况下拒绝执行裁决的自由裁量权，以此批准被告提交专家证据以证明履行裁决可能导致被告在法国会产生什么后果。
然而本案的核心问题，即本案是在英格兰执行，而即便执行结果可能导致违反法国刑法，这也与英格兰无关，因此最终法院是否会将公共政策扩大解释为不仅包括英格兰的公共政策而且包括外国（法国）的公共政策，还是仅限于英格兰的公共政策，则仍有待法院的最终决定。