您目前的位置: 首页» 咨询资讯» 英国上诉法院认定法院有权对仲裁案外第三人下达取证命令(英国案例)

英国上诉法院认定法院有权对仲裁案外第三人下达取证命令(英国案例)

2020312,在A , Bv C, D, and E [2020] EWCA Civ 409一案中,英格兰和威尔士上诉法院民事庭审查上诉案件之后,认定依照1996《仲裁法》第442)(a)条,法院有权下达命令以对仲裁案外第三人证人以庭外质询(Deposition)的方式取得宣誓证词以协助外国仲裁程序,推翻了一审法院认定的依照1996《仲裁法》第44条法院无权对仲裁案外第三人作出命令的判决(参见20200313仲裁早新闻:法院不能向非仲裁协议当事人下达取证命令)。

 

一、背景介绍

本案为上诉案件,一审案件为[2020]EWHC 258 (Comm),在该案中本案一审案件的原告为AB,被告为CDE

 

ABCD合资开发中亚某块油田,然而后来他们就某开发过程中涉及的某笔款项的性质以及该款项是否可以在分配利益时被扣减这点产生争议。AB在纽约针对CD提起仲裁程序,AB为申请人,CD为被申请人。

 

E是英国国民,并且是该笔款项的主要谈判者,但他不是仲裁协议的当事人,也不是仲裁当事人,并且不准备去纽约作证。

 

仲裁在纽约开庭,而申请人一方申请仲裁庭对E进行强制取证,并且获批。此后申请人AB转而作为原告向英格兰及威尔士高等法院将CDE作为被告提起诉讼,申请法院依照《1996仲裁法》第442)(a)条下令向E进行取证,以供在纽约的ABCD之间的仲裁程序中使用。

 

E对此表示反对,主张法院根据第44条不具有对仲裁协议当事人以外的第三人作出命令的管辖权,而且即使法院具有该等管辖权,也并无充分理由行使该管辖权。

 

一审法院认为,依照判例法,法院无权依照1996《仲裁法》第44条向仲裁协议的非当事人作出命令,而这种法理也适用于根据《仲裁法》第422)(a)条提出的申请,进而驳回了原告的请求。

 

原告对一审法院的判决表示不服,进而提起上诉,并主张法院说理错误,而且其援引的判例法并不涉及第422)(a)条,而是涉及的是关于在本管辖区之外的非当事人进行送达的规定。

 

二、涉案法条

1996《仲裁法》第23)条规定,第4344条适用于仲裁地在英格兰和威尔士以外的仲裁,不过法院若认为不妥则可以拒绝行使该权力(may refuse to exercise any such power if, in the opinion of the court)。

 

385)条规定:

The tribunal may direct that a party or witness shall be examined on oath or affirmation, and may for that purpose administer any necessary oath or take any necessary affirmation.

仲裁庭可以指示当事人或证人经宣誓或确认而接受盘问,并可为此目的而处理任何必要的宣誓或确认的手续。

 

43条规定:

Securing the attendance of witnesses.

(1)A party to arbitral proceedings may use the same court procedures as are available in relation to legal proceedings to secure the attendance before the tribunal of a witness in order to give oral testimony or to produce documentsor other material evidence.

(2)This may only be done with the permission of the tribunal or the agreement of the other parties.

(3)The court procedures may only be used if—

(a)the witness is in the United Kingdom, and

(b)the arbitral proceedings are being conducted in England and Wales or, as the case may be, Northern Ireland.

(4)A person shall not be compelled by virtue of this section to produce any document or other material evidence which he could not be compelled to produce in legal proceedings."

确保证人出庭。

1)仲裁程序的一方当事人可使用与法院程序相同的程序以确保证人在仲裁庭上出庭口头作证或出示文件或其他重大证据。

2)只有在仲裁庭的许可或其他当事人的同意下,才能这样做。

3)只有在以下情况下,才能使用法院程序:

a)证人在联合王国,及

b)仲裁程序是在英格兰和威尔士或北爱尔兰(视情况而定)进行的。

4)任何人不得因为本条而被强迫出示任何在法律程序中不能被强迫出示的文件或其他重要证据。

 

44条规定:

Court powers exercisable in support of arbitral proceedings.

(1)Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the court has for the purposes of and in relation to arbitral proceedings the same power of making orders about the matters listed below as it has for the purposes of and in relation to legal proceedings.

(2)Those matters are—

(a)the taking of the evidence of witnesses …

(e)the granting of an interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver.

法院为支持仲裁程序可行使的权力。

1)除非各方当事人另有约定,否则法院关于、以及就仲裁程序的目的而言,具有与关于、以及就诉讼程序的目的而言对以下事项下达命令的同等权力。

2)这些事项是——

a)从证人处取证……

e)授予临时禁制令或任命接管人……

 

 

82条规定:

Minor definitions.

(1)In this Part—…

“legal proceedings” means civil proceedings [F1 in England and Wales in the High Court or the county court or in Northern Ireland ] in the High Court or a county court;

次要定义。

1)在本部分中……

“法律程序”是指在高等法院或郡法院进行的民事程序[在英格兰和威尔士的高等法院,郡法院或北爱尔兰的F1]

……

 

三、一审法院认定

一审案件最主要的适用的判例法是Cruz City Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd [2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm), [2015] 1 All E.R.(Comm) 305以及DTEK Trading SA vMorozov [2017] EWHC 94 (Comm),涉及这二者对于1996《仲裁法》第442)条的适用性。

 

原告(上诉人)主张即使第44条的其他小节没有规定,第442)(a)条也可以延伸适用于仲裁案外第三人,只是第44条的其他规定不这样而已。Foxton法官依照Cruz City案和DTEK案认定依照1996《仲裁法》第44条法院并无对仲裁案外第三人作出命令的管辖权,以此驳回原告(上诉人)的主张。

 

法官指出,由于存在第442)(a)条该节的语言和结构与第44条的其他部分的结构、该法的其他语言、以及本案所涉证人位于英格兰因而不涉及域外送达等因素,因此第442)(a)条和第44条的其他部分不该区分适用。法官的结论是,本质问题并非因为域外送达不能因而导致根据第44条针对仲裁案外第三人的申请不成功,而是因为第44条不适用于仲裁案外第三人因此依照第44条对于域外仲裁案外第三人进行送达不成功。

 

然而,法官假设,若法院真有管辖权,则依照一定的注意事项而定,仲裁案外第三人应有充分的理由参加证人取证。

 

因此,法院认为,在确保证人作证方面,准据条款为1996《仲裁法》第43条,需要满足(a)证人在联合王国,及(b)仲裁程序是仲裁程序是在英格兰和威尔士或北爱尔兰(视情况而定)进行的。本案仲裁是在美国纽约进行的,因此不满足条件。

 

出于谨慎起见,一审法官批准上诉,将CruzCity案和DTEK案的适用性问题交给上诉法院处理。

 

四、上诉法院认定

本案中,上诉法院将本案涉及的问题界定的比较狭窄,而认为这不是一个关于法院是否可对仲裁案外第三人进行取证的泛泛的问题,而是具体的下达命令以对仲裁案外第三人以庭外质询(Deposition)的方式取得宣誓证词以协助外国仲裁程序的具体问题,因此适用的是Commerce & Industry Insurance Co (Canada) v Lloyd's Underwriters [2002] 1 W.L.R.1323, [2001] 8 WLUK 14案,这是目前关于第442)(a)条的唯一案件。

 

上诉法院认为,应将第441)条的措词在与第23)条的规定适用范围以及第821)条中的法律程序的定义一并理解,则明确结论是,只要满足第44条的其他限制条件,英格兰法院针对仲裁地在任何地方的仲裁都享有依照第442)(a)条所规定权力,该权力与法院在处理国内民事诉讼方面的事务相同。法院明确指出,1996《仲裁法》在这方面的措词并不把第442)(a)条的适用范围限制于国内仲裁(However,whatever the position under the other heads of the subsection, I am satisfied that section 44(2)(a) does give the court power to order the taking of evidence from a non-party for a number of related reasons. First, the wording of section 44(1) when read with section 2(3) and the definition of "legal proceedings" in section 82(1) makes it clear that, provided the other limitations built into the section, such as section 44(5), are satisfied, the English Court has the same powers under subsection (2)(a) in relation to arbitrations, wherever their seat, as it has in relation to civil proceedings before the High Court or thecounty court. There is simply no justification in the language of the Act for limiting the application of the subsection to domestic arbitrations as Ms Welsh submitted. That submission simply disregards, impermissibly, section 2(3).)。

 

此外,第442)(a)条中的对证人取证the taking of the evidence of witnesses)字样可以轻易涵盖所有证人,而不仅仅是仲裁当事人。在现代商事仲裁的背景下,实际上很少有证人实际上也是一方当事人的这种情况。此外,在第385)条和第431)条对当事人证人之间作出了明显的区别,因此将第442)(a)条中的证人解释为与当事人同义,以及将证人限于由一方控制的人这是不存在依据的,否则议会在立法的时候会明确说明(the words "the taking of the evidence of witnesses" are apt as a matter of language to cover all witnesses, not just those who are a party to the arbitration. Indeed, as Males LJ points out in his judgment, in the context of modern commercial arbitration, it is rare for a witness also to be a party. Furthermore, as Mr Lissack QC correctly submitted, the statute clearly distinguishes between a "party" and a"witness" when it is necessary to do so: see section 38(5) and section 43(1). There is no basis for construing "witnesses" in section 44(2)(a) as synonymous with "parties". Equally, there is no justification in the wording of the statute for limiting "witnesses"to those who are in the control of one or other of the parties. If Parliament had intended that limitation, it would have said so.)。

 

不仅如此,英格兰法院在民事诉讼中与对证人取证有关的权力包括根据《民事诉讼规则》第34.8条命令当事人以庭外质询(Deposition)的方式取得宣誓证词方式提供证据的权力(the powers which the English court has in relation to "the taking of the evidence of witnesses" in civil proceedings in the High Court or thecounty court include the power to order evidence to be given by deposition under CPR 34.8.)。命令作出庭外质询以取得宣誓证词用以支持外国法院诉讼是高等法院或郡法院的权力之一,没有任何证据表明法院不能这么做(There is simply no justification for reading into "the taking of the evidence of witnesses" a limitation that itexcludes depositions when the power to order a deposition is one of the powers the English Court would have in civil proceedings before the High Court or the county court.)。

 

44条中没有任何内容认为法院无权根据第442)(a)条对第三方作出命令(it does not seem to me that the other subsections of section 44 point against the Court having the power to make an Order against third parties under section 44(2)(a)),只是第447)条对非当事人的上诉权有所限制(it is something of an anomaly that there is a limitation in section 44(7) on the rights of appeal of a non-party),而这不足以支持E主张的第442)(a)条应作出限制性解释(In any event, even if there is this anomaly, it is not such as to justify givingsection 44(2)(a) the restrictive interpretation suggested on behalf of the third respondent.)。

 

此外,庭外质询以取得宣誓证词这种做法一般仅适用于一些有限的情况(如证人不宜出席等),但不能因为这样就对法院命令作出庭外质询以取得宣誓证词的权力进行狭义解释,而在特定情况下是否行使权力的问题是法院的裁量权(discretion)问题,而不是管辖权(jurisdiction)问题(I see no reason to construe the power narrowly merely because it may be used in practice relatively rarely.The question whether to exercise the power in a particular case is one which goes to discretion not to jurisdiction.)。

 

而且,如果第442)(a)条不准法院以下令庭外质询以取得宣誓证词的方式取证,则对于国际仲裁而言该条规定基本就等于是空话了(if the subsection does not permit the Court to order the taking of evidence by deposition, the subsection has little or no content in the context of a foreign arbitration. It cannot apply to inwards letters of request from the foreign arbitral tribunal for the reasons given by Moore-Bick J in Commerce & Industry Insurance.)。

 

最后被告主张狭义理解适用导致第442)(a)条适用于仲裁案外第三人,该条的其他内容则没有这种效果内在矛盾。而法院认为这不是第442)(a)条不适用于仲裁案外第三人的理由,原因是各项的语言不同,因此应分别解释和适用(Any apparent inconsistency between the various heads of subsection (2) may be explained by the different language of those heads and, as I have said, I would prefer to leave the issue of the scope of the other subsections and whether Cruz City and DTEK were correctly decided to an appeal where that issue arises directly.)。

 

MalesLJ的协同意见(concurring opinion)指出,他自己是CruzCity案的法官之一,他自己在该案的附带意见(obiterdicta)中提到说依照第44条法院没有对仲裁案外第三人作出禁制令的权力,而他是针对第442)(e)条而言的,但是字面上而言这个意见适用于整个第442)条。本案中当事人主要的主要争议点是第442)(a)条,而不是Cruz City案的第442)(e)条(In the present case the judge indicated at [18] that he could see "considerable force in the arguments advanced in favour of the view that the jurisdiction under section 44 could, in an appropriate case, be exercised against a non-party" and indicated in his reasons for granting permission to appeal that, if there had been no prior authority, he would have been inclined to accept those arguments. Nevertheless he decided at [34] that, as there were persuasive arguments either way, he should follow the reasoning in Cruz City and DTEK and hold that the court did not have jurisdiction under section 44 to make an order against a non-party to the arbitration agreement, giving permission to appeal so that the point could be authoritatively determined by this court)。本案的一审法官指出,若没有CruzCity案和DTEK案的话,他即倾向认为依照一定的注意事项而定,仲裁案外第三人应有充分的理由参加证人取证,法院可以根据第44条可对仲裁案外第三人行使管辖权。因此,一审法官适用了这几个案件来审理本案,并且允许当事人提起上诉以让上诉法院进行权威认定,所以他在审判过程中并无失查之处。

 

五、评论

本案是罕见的在商事仲裁领域中上诉法院推翻高等法院的判决的案件,其主要着眼点在于本案中设计的问题原本按照1996《仲裁法》的解释并无问题,但是由于有先例存在,而在先例中法官在附带意见中提到依照第44条法院没有对仲裁案外第三人作出禁制令的权力,而出于谨慎起见,一审法官判决较为保守,而后批准上诉,让上诉法院自己对这个问题作出决定。

 

本案体现出了普通法的几个特点,第一是法官对案件的关键争议事实认定会影响法律的适用,例如一审法院认为案件的争议点是法院是否有对仲裁案外第三人作出命令的管辖权,而上诉法院认为案件的争议点是更为狭窄的法院是否有具有可下达命令以对仲裁案外第三人证人以庭外质询(Deposition)的方式取得宣誓证词以协助外国仲裁程序的管辖权的权力,因此将本案的事实区分出来,其所适用的法律规则即可能不同。此外,本案也体现了先例原则拘束力,即上诉法院的判决具有拘束力,而高等法院自身的案例并无拘束力,因此高等法院遇到存疑的新情况和新案件时,高等法院可能会出于保守起见而依照高等法院的判例作出较为保守的判决。