2015年2月13日，在AQZ v. ARA [2015] SGHC 49一案中，新加坡高等法院作出裁定，在当事人明确约定仲裁由三人仲裁庭仲裁的情况下，SIAC根据发起仲裁时的规则强制适用独任仲裁员来进行裁决的做法不违反正当程序和当事人的约定。其理由是本案仲裁规则中有在快速仲裁中选任独任仲裁员的规定，当事人适用SIAC规则的约定只是泛泛约定适用三人仲裁庭，没有明确约定在快速仲裁中也适用三人仲裁庭，因此鉴于快速仲裁制度的特殊性，在这种情况下快速仲裁的独任仲裁员的特殊规定优先于当事人的三人仲裁庭一般约定而适用，因此驳回撤销仲裁裁决申请。

 

本案是快速仲裁领域的在国际上的典型案例，本案的裁决法理与我国上海市第一中级人民法院（2016）的沪01协外认1号案的判决法理互相冲突，二者的在全球仲裁界激起了激烈讨论，并在联合国国际贸易法委员会(UNCITRAL)在制定快速仲裁规则的讨论中为各国所重点关注。

 

一、背景介绍

AQZ（原告，SIAC仲裁被申请人）是一家在新加坡注册的供应商，而ARA（被告，SIAC仲裁申请人）是一家印度贸易和航运集团的新加坡子公司。二者由于一起印度尼西亚非焦煤买卖争议的仲裁而在SIAC进行仲裁。其争议的主要问题是在双方于2009年12月签订第一份50,000吨煤的合同之外，双方的谈判是否也导致于2010年1月产生了第二份合同。

 

2013年3月20日，被告针对原告未能根据第二份合同进行交付而提起了SIAC仲裁，合同中第16条规定“根据[SIAC]的调解和仲裁规则由三名仲裁员进行仲裁”（“in accordance with the rules of conciliation and arbitration of the [SIAC] by three arbitrators”）。 2013年3月21日，被告根据2010 SIAC规则第5条申请快速仲裁程序进行仲裁，原告对快速仲裁程序的适用性和存在仲裁协议提出异议。 SIAC仲裁院院长在考虑了双方的呈请后批准了该申请，并根据2010 SIAC规则第5.2b条指定了独任仲裁员。后来双方勉为其难同意共同选任独任仲裁员，但是原告明确表示其不同意，而且表示保留异议权。（Thereafter, there was further exchange of correspondence between the parties and the SIAC. In the event, the parties agreed to proceed with a joint nomination of a sole arbitrator, but the Supplier made clear that it was proceeding with the arbitration “under protest with all of its rights reserved, including the right, inter alia, to challenge the effectiveness of the Arbitration Agreement, the applicability of the SIAC Rules 2010, the conduct of the Arbitration under the Expedited Procedure before a sole arbitrator and/or the Tribunal’s own jurisdiction”. On 8 July 2013, the SIAC President appointed an arbitrator (“the Arbitrator”) to conduct the arbitration proceedings.） 2014年5月12日，独任仲裁员作出了“关于管辖权和责任的初步问题的部分裁决”（Ruling and Partial Award on Preliminary Issues relating to Jurisdiction and Liability），在该裁决中，仲裁员确认了对此事的管辖权，（The Arbitrator ruled that the SIAC Rules 2010 applied to the arbitral proceedings and that the proceedings could be conducted under the Expedited Procedure contained in r 5 of the SIAC Rules 2010 before a sole arbitrator），并在之后，最终裁定被告胜利，原告应对违反合同承担责任。

 

本案仲裁条款如下：

16. ARBITRATION

Any dispute,difference or disagreement between the parties arising under or in relation to this Contract, including (but not  limited to) any dispute,difference or disagreement as to the meaning of the terms of this Contract or any failure to agree on any matter required to be agreed upon under this Contract shall, if possible, be resolved by negotiation and mutual agreement by the parties within 30 (thirty) days. Should no agreement be reached, then the dispute shall be finally settled by arbitration upon the written request of either party hereto in accordance with the rules of conciliation and arbitration of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) by three arbitrators in English Language. The result of all such arbitration shall be final and binding for the parties and for all purposes.

16.仲裁

双方之间根据本合同产生的或与本合同有关的任何争议，不同或分歧，包括（但不限于）关于本合同条款含义的任何争议，不同或分歧，或者未就所需的任何事项达成协议，如有可能，应在30天内由各方通过协商协议解决。如果没有达成协议，则应根据新加坡国际仲裁中心（SIAC）的调解和仲裁规则，由任何一方书面请求，由三名仲裁员通过以英语进行的仲裁最终解决争议。所有此类仲裁的结果均为最终结果，对各方和所有目的均具有拘束力。

 

2014年6月11日，原告随后向新加坡高等法院申请撤销裁决。理由如下：（1）该裁决应根据《新加坡国际仲裁法》第10条第3款和/或联合国贸易法委员会1985年《国际商事仲裁示范法》第16条第3款而撤销该仲裁，理由是独任仲裁员无管辖权；（2）该裁决应根据《新加坡国际仲裁法》第3条第1款和《示范法》第34条第2款第（a）项第（iv）予以撤销，理由是仲裁庭和/或仲裁本身的组成违反仲裁协议，仲裁协议约定的是三人仲裁庭，而不是根据快速仲裁程序任命的独任仲裁员。

 

本案的争议点是：

1、对快速仲裁程序问题：

（1）选择SIAC规则但没有指出适用哪个版本的情况下，适用哪个版本；

（2）对于包括了快速仲裁程序的SIAC规则的选择是否效力会超过当事方在仲裁协议对于三名仲裁员的选择。

2、法院是否会以仲裁员缺乏案件管辖权为由而对撤销仲裁裁决的申请进行重新开庭审理（a de novo hearing）。

 

关于快速仲裁程序问题，原告提出了两个主张：

1、当事人双方签订合同时有效的规则是2007 SIAC规则，其中没有快速仲裁程序，因此根据2010 SIAC规则而进行的快速仲裁程序与双方的仲裁协议中的条款不一致；

2、当事人双方已明确约定由三名仲裁员进行仲裁，由独任仲裁员根据快速仲裁程序进行的仲裁与双方的仲裁协议不符。

在法院诉讼过程中，原告提出但随后撤回另一论点，即在以仲裁庭缺乏管辖权来审理争议为由申请撤裁时，法院应对该案进行重新开庭审理（de novo hearing of the matter）（包括从当事人的证人那里听取口头证据）（“重新辩论”），其引用的依据是PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV and anor appeal [2014] 1 SLR372, Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan [2011]1 AC 763，以及 Azov Shipping Co v BalticShipping Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 68。

 

二、法院认定

新加坡高等法院驳回了原告要求撤销裁决的申请。

 

1、适用规则版本争议

Prakash法官通过采用公认的推定，即对仲裁条款所及的规则，只要这些规则主要包含程序性规定，其应解释为对在仲裁开始日期（而不是合同日期）适用的规则（There is a presumption that reference to rules of a particular tribunal in an arbitration clause refers to such rules as are applicable at the date of commencement of arbitration and not at the date of contract, provided that the rules contain mainly procedural provisions. If the rules contain mainly substantive provisions, then those in force as at the date the contract was entered into would apply），从而驳回了原告的第一个主张。其依据是Navigator Investment Services Ltd v Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd [2010] 2 SLR25和Black & Vetach Singapore Pte Ltd v Jurong Engineering Ltd [2004] 4 SLR19。SIAC标准条款里的“届时有效的”（“for the time being force”）一词并不优先于该推定而适用。由于该推定未被推翻，Prakash法官认为2010 SIAC规则通过引用已纳入本合同。

 

2、SIAC仲裁院无视当事人约定的三人仲裁庭而任命独任仲裁员进行裁决

Prakash J也驳回了独任仲裁员快速仲裁违反合同约定三位仲裁员的观点。

 

UNCITRAL《示范法》第34条，申请撤销作为对仲裁裁决的唯一的追诉

( 2 ) 仲裁裁决只有在下列情况下才可以被第6条规定的法院撤销：

(a) 提出申请的当事一方提出证据证明：

㈣仲裁庭的组成或仲裁程序与当事各方的协议不一致，除非这种协议与当事各方不能背离的本法的规定相抵触，或当事各方并无此种协议，则与本法不符；或

UNCITRAL Model International Arbitration Law, Article 34. Application for setting aside as exclusive recourse against arbitral award…

(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the court specified in Article 6 only if:

(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that: …

(iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Law from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Law; …

 

依照该条款有两种可能的异议依据。申请人可以根据第34条第2款（a）项（iv）要求撤销裁决，其依据是仲裁庭的组成和/或仲裁程序不符合当事双方的协议（This article covers two separate possible grounds of challenge. An applicant can seek to set aside an award pursuant to Art 34(2)(a)(iv) on the basis that the composition of the arbitral tribunal and/or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.）。

 

原告首先主张当事双方之间没有有效的仲裁协议；而就算假设有仲裁协议，原告也认为仲裁程序不符合当事方的协议，理由是仲裁程序是根据 2010 SIAC规则第5条中的“快速程序”而错误进行的，并且2007 SIAC规则中对此类程序没有规定。其次，原告认为，即使适用2010 SIAC规则，只要仲裁是由独任仲裁员审理的，仲裁庭的组成即违反当事人约定的三人仲裁庭。(The Supplier’s arguments under this ground are in the alternative to its primary position that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the  parties. Assumingthat there was such an agreement, the Supplier first contends that the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties because it was erroneously conducted under the Expedited Procedure contained in r 5 of the SIAC Rules 2010, and that there is no provision for such a procedure in the Arbitration Rules of the SIAC (3rd Ed, 1 July 2007) (“SIAC Rules 2007”) which, according to the Supplier, are the applicable rules. Second, the Supplier argues that even if the SIAC Rules 2010 are applicable, the composition of the arbitral tribunal, insofar as the arbitration was conducted before a sole arbitrator, was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement since they had expressly agreed to arbitration before three arbitrators.

Applicable version of the SIAC Rules)

 

在本案中，仲裁通知中所述的买方索赔的原始金额为706,750美元。在仲裁程序中，买方将其索赔金额修改为852,500美元，但增加的金额仍完全在快速程序的额度范围内。（It would be noted in this case that the original quantum of the Buyer’s claim as stated in the Notice of Arbitration was US$706,750. In the arbitration proceedings, the Buyer revised its claim to US$852,500 but the increased amount was still well within the monetary boundaries of the Expedited Procedure.）

 

原告称，即使适用 2010 SIAC规则，也不应由独任仲裁员仲裁，因为当事各方已明确约定三名仲裁员仲裁。依据是NCC International AB v Land Transport Authority of Singapore [2009] 1 SLR(R) 985，在该案中原告要求法院宣告，尽管当事各方已同意由独任仲裁员进行仲裁，但SIAC的主簿可以依裁量权根据2007 SIAC规则第5.1条任命三名仲裁员。（the plaintiff sought a declaration from the court that, notwithstanding the parties’ agreement for arbitration before a sole arbitrator, the Registrar of the SIAC had the discretion to appoint three arbitrators pursuant to r 5.1 of the SIAC Rules 2007.）该案中，法官认为，如果仲裁协议规定了独任仲裁员，则第5.1条并不赋予主簿任命三名仲裁员的裁量权。法官接着认为，即使第5.1条赋予了主簿裁量权，将其在当事各方的协议中的默示纳入也不能优先于“（当事人明示同意的）仲裁条款（由独任仲裁员决定）的明确条款”而适用。（The judge held that where the agreement to arbitrate provided for a sole arbitrator, r 5.1 did not vest the Registrar with the discretion to appointthree arbitrators. The judge went on to state that even if r 5.1 vested the Registrar with that discretion, its incorporation into the parties’ agreement could not override the “express term of the arbitration clause (on a sole arbitrator) except as expressly assented to” (at [45]).）

 

被告称，如果仲裁员的人数对当事方至关重要，那么当事人应该明确规定仲裁员人数的规定优于一切。被告的依据是SIAC裁决W Company v DutchCompany and Dutch Holding Company [2012] 1 SAA 97。在该案中，独任仲裁员拒绝了基于当事协议约定任命三名仲裁员而对其管辖权的异议，理由是“当事方选择了SIAC规则来管理仲裁，他们接受了SIAC规则的全部内容，包括第五条中的快速程序，以及规则保留给SIAC主席和主簿和对于程序的管理和指引的权力。当事人的自主权丝毫没有减损，而当事人对SIAC规则的选择恰恰是要接受SIAC主席的决定。当事人可以明确约定在快速程序中也适用3名仲裁员，但本案不是那种情况。而W公司显然选择了包含快速程序条款的SIAC规则。因此，快速程序优先于当事人仲裁协议约定的三位仲裁员适用符合当事人自治。”（The parties chose the SIAC Rules to govern the arbitration and they accepted the entirety of the SIAC Rules including the Expedited Procedure in Rule 5 together with the powers that the Rule reserves to the Chairman and Registrar of the SIAC to administer and guide the proceedings. There is no derogation from party autonomy and it is precisely the parties’ choice of the SIAC Rules that requires acceptance of the Chairman’s decision. It may be otherwise if the parties had stipulated that there shall be 3 arbitrators even if the proceedings were under the Expedited Procedure but that is not the case here. It appears that in W Company, the parties had expressly chosen a version of the SIAC Rules that contained the Expedited Procedure provision. Therefore, it was consistent with party autonomy for the Expedited Procedure provision to override their agreement for arbitration before three arbitrators.）

 

法官指出，2010 SIAC规则已被纳入双方的合同中，因此，如NCC International所述，必须对规则与合同的其余部分进行有目的的解释。法官认为，NCC International认为，即使该规则在SIAC规则中已经生效，在某种意义上“明示同意”对于快速程序条款而言没有必要推翻当事人约定三名仲裁员的仲裁协议。自2010 SIAC规则纳入当事方合同以后，仲裁协议的有目的和“商业上合理”（commercially sensible）的解释是承认SIAC仲裁院院长有任命独任仲裁员的裁量权（A commercially sensible approach to interpreting the parties' arbitration agreement would be to recognise that the SIAC President does have the discretion to appoint a sole arbitrator）；否则，无论争议的复杂性如何或涉及的金额如何，只要当事人有约定，就会导致即使SIAC规则有其他规定也不能按照该规定来选任独任仲裁员审理争议。该结论是荒谬的，因为似乎原告对快速程序的接受和对其他SIAC规则的接受并没什么不同（Otherwise,regardless of the complexity of the dispute or the quantum involved, a sole arbitrator can never be appointed to hear the dispute notwithstanding the incorporation of the SIAC  Rules 2010 which provide for the tribunal to be constituted by a sole arbitrator when the Expedited Procedure is invoked. That would be an odd outcome, especially since the Supplier appears to accept that the Expedited Procedure provision is no different from any other procedural rule contained in the SIAC Rules 2010.）

 

在本案中，原告反对快速仲裁，但理由仅是当事双方不同意该程序的适用，而且没有特别紧急的事由要求尽快审理此事。原告主张SIAC规则2010第5.1（b）和（c）节中提供的快速程序的理由并未满足，原告并未明确依据合同在快速程序条款生效之前就已经签订的事实主张该条款不适用。但是，没有任何迹象表明SIAC主席在决定允许被告根据快速程序条款进行仲裁的申请时没有考虑到这一事实。（In the present case, the Supplier objected to the arbitration being heard pursuant to the Expedited Procedure provision. However, it only objected on the grounds that the parties had not agreed to the application of this procedure and that there was no exceptional urgency requiring the matter to be heard on an expedited basis. In essence, the Supplier was attempting to argue that the grounds for Expedited Procedure provided in r 5.1(b) and (c) of the SIAC Rules 2010 were not made out. The Supplier did not expressly rely on the fact that the contract had been entered into before the Expedited Procedure provision came into force as a reason why that provision should not apply. Nonetheless thereis nothing that suggests that the SIAC President had not taken that fact into consideration when he decided to allow the Buyer’s application for the arbitration to be conducted under the Expedited Procedure provision.）

 

此外，与2012 ICC规则及其新加的紧急仲裁员条款不同，2010 SIAC规则并未规定快速仲裁程序不适用于在新规则生效之前订立的仲裁协议。（the ICC’s new emergency arbitrator provisions expressly state that they donot apply in the context of arbitration agreements that were entered intobefore the new ICC rules came into force: at para 7.10, footnote 14; see ICCRules (2012), Art 29(6). However, the SIAC’s Expedited Procedure provision doesnot contain a similar exclusion. This fortifies my conclusion that theExpedited Procedure provision can override parties’ agreement for  arbitration before three arbitrators evenwhen the contract was entered into before the Expedited Procedure provisioncame into force.）

 

Prakash法官还指出，即使原告成功主张本应在三人仲裁庭进行仲裁，原告也没有满足其违约的实质性或严重性的举证责任，也没有证明自己遭受了任何损害，这是监管法院在决定是否行使《示范法》第34条第2款第（a）项第（iv）目规定的裁量权而时所应考虑的一个因素。本案中原告没有对此进行主张（Even if the Supplier is correct in its submission that the arbitration should not have been conducted before a sole arbitrator, the Supplier has not discharged its burden of explaining the materiality or the seriousness of the breach. Nor has it demonstrated that it suffered any prejudice as a result of the arbitral procedure that was adopted. While prejudice is not a legal requirement for an award to be set aside pursuant to Art 34(2)(a)(iv), it is a relevant factor that the supervisory court considers in deciding whether the breach in question is serious and thus whether to exercise its discretionary power to set aside the award for the breach: Triulz iCesare SRL v Xinyi Group (Glass) Co Ltd [2015] 1 SLR 114 at [54], [64] and[66]. In the present case, the Supplier has not made any submissions on this issue.）

 

3、重新聆讯（a de novo hearing）问题

关于重新聆讯（a de novo hearing）问题，Prakash法官在附带意见（orbiter dicta）中表示，尽管法院无疑将在《新加坡国际仲裁法》第10条申请中对仲裁庭对其管辖权的决定进行重新审理，但这并不意味着口头证据和交叉盘问证据在每个申请中都将得到允许；与此不同，法院保留了《法院规则》（Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)）中的裁量权，以允许接受口头证据和/或盘问，以确保公正，迅速和经济地处理此案。 Prakash法官认为，由于要求撤销仲裁裁决的原诉传票（Originating Summons）是根据《法院规则》O 69A r 2提出的，根据该规定应依据该规定提交的宣誓证明书必须特别包括裁决书本身和原告寻求依据的“任何证据”，任何此类申请均应通过宣誓书所宣的证据解决，而不是在每种情况下都应重新审理。这还可以减少对证据进行重新审理的需要，因为：1、在大多数情况下，法院很可能会获得裁决书、仲裁庭的笔录、以及当事各方在仲裁中所依据的文件； 2、证人的举止常常是不确定的，不应仅仅依靠证人的举证来认定事实。但是，根据《法院规则》O 28 r 4条，法院在认为关于事实存在或可能存在争议、以及样做将确保“公正，迅速，经济”（just expeditious and economical）地处理该申请的情况下可以允许口头证据和/或盘问。

 

不过， Prakash法官也警告到，除非存在事实争议以外的“特殊情况”，否则法院通常不会允许口头证据和/或盘问。要考虑的因素包括，当事各方已经在仲裁庭上对证人进行了充分的盘问，以及例如在Astra S.A. v Sphere Drake [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 550中涉及的罗马尼亚法律的“尴尬和隐瞒”的特殊情况。。Prakash法官明确拒绝Azov Shipping Co v Baltic Shipping Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 68所提出来的当事方是否存在有关仲裁协议的重大事实争议即是使用口头证据和/或盘问的充分理由这一论断。

 

三、评论

 

从法院的判决中可以得到的启示是如果合同缔约方希望使用SIAC规则的特定版本，则应在其仲裁条款中明确指出该版本的名称，否则可能有将来对SIAC规则的任何修改都可能适用于其仲裁的风险。那些不希望使用快速仲裁程序，和/或想对快速仲裁程序进行实质性修改的当事方，应在仲裁条款中对此写明。

 

不仅如此，从本案开始，新加坡法院为快速仲裁程序下的对仲裁裁决的异议设定了较高的门槛。因此，如果当事人想要在SIAC或者其他快速仲裁中也适用三人仲裁庭的，最好在仲裁协议中明确约定若仲裁案被仲裁机构分配适用快速仲裁这一模式，则无论案件的额度和复杂性如何，也无论机构认为独任仲裁员审理本案多么合理，都必须强制适用三人仲裁庭审理该快速程序案件，以此限制仲裁机构指派独任仲裁员审理当事人争议的能力。

 

本案件也同样说明了选择仲裁地和仲裁规则的重要性。