2020年6月2日，在Jefferies International Ltd &Anor v Cantor Fitzgerald & Co & Ors[2020] EWHC 1381 (QB)一案中，法院根据1996年《仲裁法》第9条及FINRA仲裁规则，认定被告与第三人所签合同的仲裁协议对同为FINRA成员的原被告双方不具有约束力。另外，法院认为，被告对于管辖权异议未履行举证责任，继续进行诉讼程序不违反相称原则和司法公正，故法院拒绝基于案件管理的理由中止诉讼程序。

一、背景介绍

本案原告为Jefferies国际、Jefferies香港和Jefferies集团。被告为Cantor、Cantor欧洲、Cantor香港资本市场（合称为“被告Cantor”）及三名自然人。原告主张被告Cantor指示从原告处辞职的26名员工拒绝履行因辞职和随后被Cantor雇用而引发的返还奖金的义务。部分还款协议包含了非排他性FINRA仲裁条款（the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority，美国金融业监管局）。被告对法院管辖权提出异议，主张应当中止当前法院程序。

二、法院认定

法院认定本案应适用如下法律：

1996年《仲裁法》第6条：（1）本编中，“仲裁协议”系指将现在或将来之争议(无论其为契约性与否)提交仲裁的协议。（In this Part an "arbitration agreement" means an agreement to submit to arbitration present or future disputes (whether they are contractual or not).）

（2）在协议中援引书面形式的仲裁条款或包含仲裁条款的文件，构成仲裁协议，只要该援引旨在使上述条款成为协议的一部分。（The reference in an agreement to a written form of arbitration clause or to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the reference is such as to make that clause part of the agreement.）

1996年《仲裁法》第9条：（1）如诉讼针对仲裁协议的一方当事人提出（无论本诉抑或反诉），所涉及的事项依仲裁协议应提交仲裁，该方当事人（经向对方当事人发出通知后）可向诉讼发生地法院提出申请，要求法院中止有关上述事项的程序。（A party to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings are brought (whether by way of claim or counterclaim) in respect of a matter which under the agreementis to be referred to arbitration may (upon notice to the other parties to the proceedings) apply to the court in which the proceedings have been brought to stay the proceedings so far as they concern that matter.）

FINRA规则第13200条：除非另有规定，如果争议是由成员或关联人的业务活动引起的，并且是在成员之间，则必须根据本规则进行仲裁。（Except as otherwise provided in the Code, a dispute must be arbitrated under the Code if the dispute arises out of the business activities of a member or an associated person and is between or among … Members…）

FINRA规则第13209条：在仲裁期间，任何一方不得对任何其他相关或将解决仲裁中提出的任何问题的一方提起任何诉讼或法律程序。（During an arbitration, no party may bring any suit, legal action, or proceeding against any other party that concerns or that would resolve any of the matters raised in the arbitration.）

《联邦仲裁法》第2条：

任何海事交易或证明交易的合同中关于通过仲裁解决由此类合同或交易，或拒绝履行其全部或部分义务而产生的商事争议的书面规定，或将此类合同或交易或拒绝履行而产生的现有争议提交仲裁的书面协议，应为有效，不可撤销并可强制执行，除非法律或衡平法上存在撤销合同的理由。（A written provisionin any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any partthere of, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.）

1. 不应根据《仲裁法》第9条中止诉讼程序

原告三和被告一是FINRA的成员。根据FINRA第13200条规则，被告主张书面仲裁协议可根据《联邦仲裁法》第2条在美国强制执行。被告主张，根据《仲裁法》第9条，是否存在仲裁协议是一个美国法问题。另外，根据该法第2条，第9条适用于“即使仲裁地在英格兰和威尔士或北爱尔兰以外，或没有指定或确定任何仲裁地”的情形，而该法第5条要求仲裁协议必须是书面的，并在可以说有书面协议的情况下以非常宽泛的措词加以界定，只适用于“仲裁地在英格兰和威尔士或北爱尔兰”的情形。

根据Citigroup Global Markets Ltd v Amatra Leveraged Feeder Holdings Ltd [2012] 2 CLC 279案，法院不支持被告的主张，认为其忽略了《仲裁法》第6（1）条的条款。法院支持原告的观点认为，只有在法院认定存在符合第6（1）条的仲裁协议且涉及事实和英格兰法律的混合问题时，被告才有权依据该法第9（1）条申请中止诉讼程序。（In the circumstances Mr Oudkerk QC is right to submit that the power to stay under section 9(1) of the Act is only engaged if the court concludes that there is an arbitration agreement in accordance with section 6(1) and that this a mixed question of fact and English law.）

根据Mercato Sports (UK) Ltd v Everton FC [2018] EWHC 1567(Ch)案，当事人之间要有仲裁协议且必须有合同关系，只有通过适用有关合同订立的一般规则来确定合同才能存在。两个没有直接联系的人之间的默示合同（即平行合同，horizontal contract）可在各方都与同一第三方签订了单独的合同（即垂直合同，vertical contract），则可能会产生第三方制定或规定的特定规则。

法院认为关键问题是本案具体的事实和情况是否证明原告三和被告一之间是否达成默示协议。（In the circumstances I agree with Mr Oudkerk QC that the critical question is whether the particular facts and circumstances justify the implication of an agreement between the Third Claimant and the First Defendant.）根据Citigroup案，不应根据被告和第三方之间达成的一般仲裁协议，而是应在FINRA 制度范畴内提出。因此，法院认定原告三和被告一之间的规定性义务不是FINRA成员之间的合同问题，《仲裁法》第9（1）条不适用。（...not brought underan arbitration agreement of the usual kind made consensually between the defendants and a third party, but are brought under a regulatory regime…"I therefore accept Mr Oudkerk QC's submission that the regulatory obligation arising between the Third Claimant and the First Defendant is not a matter a matter of contract between them as FINRA members and therefore section 9(1) if the 1996 Act cannot apply.）

2. 不构成案件管理中止（case management stay）

（1）被告就管辖权异议未履行举证责任

被告指出Jefferies US主张的应付款项占诉讼标的总价值的79%。但法院认为，对被告的侵权之诉是良好可辩的（good arguable case），而且案件的关键要素发生在伦敦，原告提出证据表明，在26名辞职的员工中有10名在伦敦，而参与这些诉讼的三名雇员为其中最资深的得以平衡。

法院认可原告的主张，即为明确管辖权不应过度重视合同性主张的数量，其中多数诉讼在本次诉讼中不予审理。（In the circumstancesI accept Mr Oudkerk QC's submission that for the purpose of determining jurisdiction I should not place much weight on the number of contractual claims, most of which are not pursued in this litigation. ）虽然被告声称本案争议集中在纽约，但并未提供证据证明他们所说的相关事件发生地以支持其主张，没有履行举证责任。（while the Cantor Defendants have asserted that the focus of this case is New York they have not made any attempt to support the assertion by producing evidence of where they say the relevant events took place. In the circumstances they have not discharged the evidential burden upon them.）

（2）不违反相称原则

被告主张在FINRA仲裁结果出来前中止诉讼程序符合司法公正。原告已就同样的法律问题对被告Jefferies的10名前雇员展开了FINRA仲裁，仲裁庭将在仲裁程序中裁定英国和纽约法律问题。被告认为，中止诉讼直至FINRA仲裁裁决作出之日在当前情况下是恰当的。如果英国诉讼程序继续进行，又有纽约的仲裁程序，可能存在决定不一致的风险，这违背了英国法院案件管理的目标和规则。仲裁裁决可能会消除在这方面继续下去的必要性。一旦FINRA仲裁程序结束，这些程序中的争议问题很可能会限缩。因此中止诉讼符合相称性原则。在作出裁决之前，双方不会因中止诉讼而受到损害。

法院对被告关于相称性（proportionality）的主张不予支持。相称性并非仅是一种价值衡量，这一点在《民事诉讼规则》第44.3.（5）条（b）至（e）项中得以明确。原告寻求维护其在商事方面的合同权利。法院将行使其案件管理和费用管理的积极权力以确保相称性。（I am not impressed with Mr Stafford QC's point about proportionality. Proportionality is not simply a function of value as is made clear by the inclusion of sub paragraphs(b) to (e) in CPR r 44.3.(5). In this case the Claimants are seeking to uphold their contractual rights in a commercial context. The Court will use its powers of active case management and cost management to ensure proportionality.）另外，本案9个当事人中只有2个同为FINRA仲裁的当事人。因此FINRA仲裁裁决结果不会具有决定性，法院认为从案件管理层面来看，中止诉讼不会实质性地减少或消除决定不一致的风险。（In the circumstances I accept Mr Oudkerk QC's submission that a case management stay will not materially decrease or eliminate the risk of inconsistent decisions.）

法院认定FINRA仲裁会根据纽约州的法律真正考虑雇员的还款义务问题，而不能断定FINRA仲裁将考虑这些条款在英国法律下的可执行性，或是否根据现有证据审议香港的劳动合同法。FINRA仲裁不能考虑针对被告的侵权之诉，例如被告是否有意促成或介入员工违反还款义务。被告四至六的诉讼必须在英国进行，在这种情况下，法院不认为这些情况为案件管理中止提供了基础。（It also appears to me that the FINRA arbitration will only really consider the issue of the employees' repayment obligations under New York Law. On the basis of the material before me I cannot conclude that the FINRA arbitration will consider the arguments as to the enforceability of those provisions under English law. Nor on the basis of the evidence will the FINRA arbitration consider the HongKong law employment contracts. The FINRA arbitration cannot consider the tort claims against Cantor such as whether the Cantor Defendants were aware of and procured the breaches of the employees' repayment obligations or as to their involvement in the circumstances leading to the employee's non-payment. As has already been noted the claims against the Fourth to Sixth Defendants have to be pursued here under Brussels I Recast and in the circumstances I am not persuaded that these circumstances provide a basis for a case management stay.）

另外，由于FINRA仲裁的听证会至少要到2021年4月或5月才能举行，可能直到2021年秋季才能做出裁决。法院支持原告的主张，即这将对其通过诉讼寻求救济造成损害。法院认定不予中止诉讼程序不会使得原告重复获偿，原告在合同和侵权行为中有单独的诉讼理由且有权追偿，因为从特定被告处追偿的任何款项都需要在必要时加以考虑。（I am not impressed by the suggestion that there could be a prospect of double recovery. As Mr Oudkerk QC points out, Jefferies has separate causes of action in contract and tort which it is entitled to pursue and this cannot create a risk of double recovery as any monies recovered from a particular defendant will need to brought into account where necessary.）

3. 结论

法院认定本案不得根据1996年《仲裁法》第9条中止诉讼，并驳回被告关于英国并非最佳争议解决地的主张和在FINRA仲裁裁决作出前基于案件管理中止诉讼程序的请求。

三、评论

在本案中，原告根据1996年《仲裁法》第9条并以案件管理为由请求中止诉讼。除《仲裁法》第9条，法院还结合FINRA规则第13200条“如果争议是由成员或关联人的业务活动引起的，并且是在FINRA成员之间，则必须根据本规则进行仲裁”的规定，认定在本案当事人同为FINRA成员的情况下不得依据当事人与第三方的一般性仲裁协议，向法院申请诉讼中止从而将本案争议交由仲裁审理。另外，法院还考虑到了本案争议的复杂性和FINRA仲裁程序，支持原告通过诉讼在仲裁裁决作出前获偿的主张，认可原告在合同和侵权行为中有单独的诉讼理由且有权追偿。

法院还运用相称原则对此进行说明，提出相称原则并非仅适用价值衡量。原告主张合同性商事权利，运用其案件管理和费用管理的权力确保相称性也是相称原则和司法公正的体现。