2020年4月27日，在CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land PteLtd [2020] SGHC 81一案中，新加坡高等法院确认仲裁庭在作出费用方面有裁量权，当事人不得将仲裁庭的事实认定问题、法律适用问题认为是法律错误，从而对仲裁庭的事实认定提出异议。

 

一、背景介绍

双方当事人于2013年订立公寓开发项目合同，进行Seletar Park Residence项目的建设施工，被告为发包商，原告为总承包商。

 

该合同采纳的是新加坡建筑师协会（Singapore Institute of Architects, SIA）的《建筑合同条款与条件》（Lump Sum Contract）第九版，以及《合同的补充条款与条件》（the Supplemental Articles and Conditions of Contract），其中有仲裁条款“交由当事人同意的人进行仲裁和最终决定”（“referred to the arbitration and final decision ofa person to be agreed by the parties”）。

 

被告于2014年10月终止合同，原告于2014年11月申请仲裁程序，该仲裁分为两个阶段，责任阶段（liability phase）以及数额阶段（quantum phase），仲裁庭于2019年作出最终裁决。不仅如此，当事人之间在本仲裁案之外还就与本案有关的争议在新加坡法院有其他诉讼程序。

 

在此期间，仲裁庭一共作出了四个部分裁决，而本申请涉及的是第四个部分裁决——“费用裁决”（Costs Award），其处理的是之前的数额阶段（费用数额裁决，Quantum Costs Award）的费用问题。

 

在该阶段中，被告向原告发出Calderbank要约，提出以950万新元和解争议，但原告没有接受。Calderbank要约又称为和解要约，是指“除费用问题外不影响有关权利”（without prejudice save as to costs）的和解要约，确立于英格兰的Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93 (CA)一案，且在Shi Fang v Koh Pee Huat [1996] 1 SLR(R) 906一案中引进新加坡。在Calderbank要约中做出的任何妥协和让步都不得被视为作出该等妥协或让步的一方理屈的表现，并且其中承认的任何事项都仅限于和解使用，不得被法官或仲裁员所参考。对于该等要约而言，若日后仲裁庭/法院裁定要约人的赔偿金低于其要约中给出的数额，且受要约人拒绝该等要约，则要约人有权要求仲裁庭/法院要求受要约人承担从拒绝之日起产生的有关仲裁/诉讼费用；若日后仲裁庭/法院裁定要约人的赔偿金高于其要约中给出的数额，且受要约人拒绝该等要约，则要约人的仲裁/诉讼费用承担不受影响。在Cutts v Head [1984] Ch 290 一案中，法院认为，对于Calderbank要约而言，法院在对最终的费用承担作出决定时可以参考该要约。

 

仲裁庭最终认定被告需要赔偿原告640万新元，因此原告不接受Calderbank要约是不合理的，因此原告需要承担更多的仲裁费用。

 

原告对该费用裁决不服，依照《仲裁法》第49（3）（b）条就费用裁决的合法性问题而向高等法院提起上诉。《仲裁法》第48条规定法院可以撤销裁决的情形，而第49条则是几种法院可以接受对于裁决进行法律问题方面的上诉的情形（A party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice tothe other parties and to the arbitral tribunal) appeal to the Court on aquestion of law arising out of an award made in the proceedings.）。

 

二、法院认定

法院援引Ng Tze Chew Diana v Aikco Construction Pte Ltd[2019] SGHC 259的5个条件对是否准予进行了法律审查，即：

（1）《仲裁法》第49（1）条：上诉针对的只能是法律问题（the appeal must be on a question of law）；

（2）《仲裁法》第49（5）（a）条：该法律问题的认定将在实质影响一方或多方仲裁当事人的权利（the determination of that question will substantially affect the rights of one or more of the parties to the arbitration）；

（3）《仲裁法》第49（5）（b）条：该法律问题是仲裁员被要求去决定的问题（the question was one which the arbitrator was asked to determine）；

（4）《仲裁法》第49（5）（c）条：从裁决中的事实认定出发，仲裁员对该问题的决定显然错误，或者该问题涉及公共利益，并且仲裁庭的决定引发严重怀疑（the appeal must be on a question of law）（on the basis of the findings of fact in the award, the decision of the arbitrator on the question is obviously wrong, or the question is one of general public importance and the decision of the arbitral tribunal is at least open to serious doubt）；和

（5）《仲裁法》第49（5）（d）条：尽管当事人同意仲裁，但本案由法院进行裁判更为适当（despite the agreement of the parties to resolve the matter by arbitration, it is just and proper in all the circumstances for the Court to determine the question）。

 

法院还认为，本案应在以下原则的框架下进行裁判：Holland Leedon Pte Ltd (In Liquidation) v MetalformAsia Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 1086的裁决的终局性原则以及当事人自治原则（The underlying policy of the AA is to promote finality of the arbitration process and awards. The AA recognises party autonomy as parties have decided to resolve their disputes by arbitration and not court actions. Section 49 of the AA provides an exceptional recourse to the courts on questions of law only where the rigorous statutorily prescribed conditions have been met.），Ng Chin Siau & Ors v How Kim Chuan [2007] 2SLR(R) 789的司法对仲裁的干预最小化原则（“the policy behind the enactment of s 49 of the Actis that curial intervention in the arbitral process is to be minimised），以及Polaris Shipping Co Ltd v Sinoriches Enterprises CoLtd [2015] EWHC 3405 (Comm)的法院不能对裁决吹毛求疵的原则（the Court should read the tribunal’s reasons in a “reasonable and commercial way” and should not approach an award with a “meticulous legal eye endeavouring to pick holes, inconsistencies and faults in [the] award”）。

 

法院将原告主张的依据分为三类，并一一驳回了上诉申请。

 

1、费用方面惩罚的必要性

首先，原告主张即便其拒绝Calderbank要约后又未能在仲裁中获得更有利的结果，仲裁庭对其在费用方面进行的惩罚也是没有必要的（Question pertaining to whether the tribunal has the discretion to order costs should a party who rejects a Calderbank offer fail to achieve a better outcome in arbitration.）。

 

对于此，法院认为，对于原告未接受Calderbank要约的不利费用后果的法律规定而言，仲裁庭在作出费用方面有裁量权（the tribunal was clear that it did in fact have a discretion, which could be exercised “in an appropriate situation”, to determine whether or not to impose cost consequences on the party which had rejected a Calderbank offer），而且关于不接受Calderbank offer的后果方面的法律规定是很明确的（the area of law on cost consequences following an unaccepted Calderbank offer is fairly trite and I would expect the arbitrator to have been aware of the relevant principles），因此仲裁员作出这一决定并没有什么问题。

 

2、仲裁庭是否延伸其“管辖权”

其次，原告主张仲裁庭涉嫌延伸其“管辖权”有关的某些问题（Questions pertaining to whether and when the tribunal has “jurisdiction” to consider proceedings not before it, or to consider the impact of its own findings on those proceedings.）。

 

原告主张，在评估与本案有关的各种程序所涉及的金额时，仲裁庭需要先评估其他法院诉讼程序中各方当事人主张在多大程度上站得住脚，之后才能得出本案的金额。因此，本案涉及仲裁庭在作出其判断时是否采取了正确的法律方法，而这是一个法律问题。

 

法院认为没有任何迹象表明仲裁庭对仲裁裁决发表意见会限制其他法律程序中的法官或者仲裁员的管辖权（There is no suggestion that the tribunal’s observations in the arbitral award would fetter the jurisdiction of a judge in other legal proceedings.）。

 

此外，法院认为这些问题是事实问题，而依照Progen Engineering Pte Ltd v Chua Aik Kia (tradingas Uni Sanitary Electrical Construction) [2006] 4 SLR(R) 419案，当事人不得对仲裁庭的事实认定提起上诉（the arbitrator’s findings of fact are conclusive: it is irrelevant whether the court considers those findings of fact to be rightor wrong … the court must decide any question of law arising from an award on the basis of an unqualified acceptance of the findings of fact of the arbitrator…）。在本案中，原告将其作为法律问题而提起，因而予以驳回。法院重申其禁止当事人对仲裁庭的事实认定结果提出异议（I am therefore of the view that Question 2(c) seeksto contrive a question of law from what was in effect a disagreement between the parties on evidential sufficiency and the weight to be given to the evidence. Those areas of disagreement clearly concerned questions of fact. As already mentioned, the findings of fact by the tribunal have to be given unqualified acceptance in the proceedings before me (see [74] to [76] above).）。

 

3、Calderbank要约的可取性

最后，原告主张若Calderbank要约涉及对于另一法院或仲裁庭审理的非金钱主张，因此其可取性存疑（Question pertaining to whether and when a tribunal can consider the favourability of a Calderbank offer where the offer seeks to settle non-monetary claims pending before the Court or another tribunal.）。

 

法院则基于事实驳回了该论点。首先，法院不认为对这些事项作出认定会对当事人的权利产生重大影响。第二，法院认为仲裁庭需要对这些问题作出决定（First, I am not convinced that determination of Question 2(b) would have a substantial impact on the rights of the parties. Second, I am not satisfied that the tribunal was asked to determine Question 2(b).），理由是这些问题中的“非金钱主张”（non-monetary claim）涉及因一项相关诉讼而产生的其他程序，而这些问题在仲裁庭作出费用裁决后即由上诉法院对其进行了处分。

 

此外，法院还援引Ahong Construction (S) Pte Ltd v United Boulevard Pte Ltd [1993] 2 SLR(R) 208案，分析了法律适用错误（对此当事人无上诉权）和法律问题错误（对此当事人有上诉权）之间的区别（The distinction between an error in the application of the law (which does not confer a right of appeal under the AA) and a question of law (which does confer a right of appeal under the AA) reflects longstanding authority.）。基于本案事实，法院认定本案的情况最多也只属于法律适用错误的问题，因此驳回原告申请（At the very highest, CKR can only show that there was an error in the application of the law and not a question of law.）。

 

三、评论

本案体现了《仲裁法》第49条的上诉权的有限性，以及法院对于仲裁庭的事实认定和法律适用的尊重，当事人不得将对仲裁庭的法律事实认定提出的异议包装为法律错误进而对仲裁庭的事实认定和法律适用提出异议。本案中法院援引Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd v Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co Ltd [2005] 2 SLR(R) 270，重申关于在仲裁基于法律问题而上诉的判例法表明，批准这种申请的门槛很高（The court’s ability to supervise the conduct of arbitration proceedings and interfere with the outcome of those proceedings is limited. It is well established that the principle of party autonomy is to be given priority and that, even if a judge would have come to a different conclusion from that of the arbitrator, that is not, in itself, a reason to set aside the award or allow an appeal to be brought against it…）。此外《仲裁法》第49条明确规定了在获准上诉许可之前需要满足的要求，且必须满足所有这些要求才能获得上诉许可（Beyond the threshold which must be met, s 49 of the AA is clear in setting out the requirements before leave to appeal shall be granted. These requirements are cumulative, and all of them must be satisfied before leave to appeal may be granted. On the instant facts, at least some of the requirements for the grant of leave to appeal the questions framed by CKR have not been met.）。

 

此外，本案进一步体现了新加坡法院鼓励仲裁和解。法院指出，和解能最大限度地降低诉讼费用，并可以节省大量时间和资源的途径，因此当事人无视合理的和解要约则可能需要承担不利后果（As a final note, let me caution that parties should carefully consider and evaluate offers to settle disputes. They represent an avenue to minimise the costs of litigation, and can save considerable time and resources. It is for this reason that there may be consequences when they are unjustifiably ignored.）。