2020年2月12日，在A and B v C and D and E, [2020] EWHC 258 (Comm)一案中，英格兰与威尔士高等法院（以下简称法院）认为，《仲裁法》第44条不适用于非仲裁协议当事人，法院根据《仲裁法》第44条不具有对仲裁协议当事人以外的其他人作出命令的管辖权，故法院根据《仲裁法》第44（2）（a）条仅有权向仲裁协议当事人下令获取证人证据。在确保证人作证方面，适用的条款应当是《1996年仲裁法》第43条，根据该条款，确保证人作证须满足两个条件，即（a）证人在联合王国，及（b）仲裁程序是在英格兰和威尔士，或者北爱北兰进行。因此，申请人根据《仲裁法》第44（2）（a）条请求法院下令向非当事人获取证据的申请被法院驳回。
一、背景介绍
本案申请人为A和B（以下简称申请人），本案被申请人为C、D和E。A、B、C、D是中亚某块油田开发的合资者，他们就某款项的性质以及在分配利益时是否可以扣减发生争议。四名当事人在纽约进行了仲裁程序。A、B为仲裁程序的申请人，C、D为仲裁程序的被申请人。
当事人在纽约仲裁程序中举行了听证。申请人A、B请求仲裁庭准许其在英国提出向第三被申请人E的强制取证申请并获得了仲裁庭批准。于是，申请人根据《1996仲裁法》第44（2）（a）条提出了本案申请，请求法院下令向第三被申请人获取证据，使之能够在两名申请人与第一、第二被申请人在纽约进行的仲裁程序中引用。
第三被申请人的律师对此表示反对，其理由是法院根据《1996年仲裁法》第44条不具有对仲裁协议当事人以外的其他人作出命令的管辖权。即使法院具有管辖权，也没有充分理由行使该管辖权。第一、第二被申请人的律师没有就法院是否具有管辖权发表意见，但同意第三被申请人律师的观点认为法院缺乏行使管辖权的适当理由。
法院对本案申请作出如下认定。
二、法院认定
1. 相关法律和程序规定
《1996英国仲裁法》第43条规定：
“43.（保证证人出席）
（1）仲裁程序的一方当事人可以采用如同诉讼中使用的法院程序，以保证证人出席开庭，以便其可以提供口头证言或文书或其他重要证据。
（2）前款作法只有经仲载庭准许或其他当事人同意，才可适用。
（3）法院程序仅在下列情况下适用：
（a）证人在联合王国，及
（b）仲裁程序是在英格兰和威尔士，或者北爱北兰进行。
（4）不得根据本条强迫任何人提供任何文书或其他重要证据，如同不得强迫其在诉讼程序中提供此等证据一样。”
“Securing the attendance ofwitnesses.
(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 documents or other material evidence.
(2) This may only be done withthe 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.”
《1996英国仲裁法》第44条规定：
“44.（法院支持仲裁程序可行使之权力）
（1）除非当事人另有约定，为仲裁程序之目的，法院有权就仲裁程序的下列事项作出命令，就如同它为诉讼目的对与诉讼有关的事项作出裁定。
（2）此类事项是：
（a）获取证人的证据；
（b）证据保全；
（c）就任何关于仲裁程序之标的或在程序中任何问题所涉及的有关财产事项作出下列命令：
（i）对该财产进行检验、拍照、保全、保管或扣押，或
（ii）从财产中提取样品，对之进行观察或实验。
并且为此目的，授权任何人进入一方当事人所有或控制之场所。
（d）出售任何作为程序标的之货物；
（e）发出临时禁止令或指定财产管理人。
（3）如情况紧急，经仲裁程序的当事人或拟提起仲裁的当事人申请，法院如认为确有必要，可以作出证据保全或财产保全的命令。
（4）如情况并不紧急，法院仅可在一方当事人(经通知另一方当事人)申请且得到仲裁庭的准许或其他当事人的书面同意后，方可作出上述裁定。
（5）无论何种情况，法院仅可在仲裁庭或当事人授予此项权力的仲裁机构、其他机构或个人无权或暂时不能有效行使此项权力的情况下，方可行使此项权力。
（6）如果法院已经作出命令，则如有权行事的仲裁庭、仲裁机构、其他机构或个人就有关法院命令之标的作出裁定后，法院根据本条作出的命令应全部或部分失去效力。
（7）针对本条项下法院决定的上诉应取得法院的准许。”
“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;
(b) the preservation of evidence;
(c) making orders relating to property which is the subject of the proceedings or as to which any question arises in the proceedings—
(i) for the inspection, photographing, preservation, custody or detention of the property, or
(ii) ordering that samples be taken from, or any observation be made of or experiment conducted upon, the property;
and for that purpose authorising any person to enter any premises in the possession or control of aparty to the arbitration;
(d) the sale of any goods the subject of the proceedings;
(e) the granting of an interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver.
(3) If the case is one of urgency, the court may, on the application of a party or proposed party to the arbitral proceedings, make such orders as it thinks necessary for the purpose of preserving evidence or assets.
(4) If the case is not one of urgency, the court shall act only on the application of a party to the arbitral proceedings (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) made with the permission of the tribunal or the agreement in writing of the other parties.
(5) In any case the courts hall act only if or to the extent that the arbitral tribunal, and any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with power in that regard, has no power or is unable for the time being to act effectively.
(6) If the court so orders, an order made by it under this section shall cease to have effect in whole or in part on the order of the tribunal or of any such arbitral or other institution or person having power to act in relation to the subject-matter of the order.
(7) The leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section.”
《1996英国仲裁法》第2条规定，第43条和第44条适用于仲裁地位于英格兰和威尔士或北爱尔兰之外的仲裁（如纽约仲裁），尽管“如法院认为仲裁地位于或者待选定或确定之仲裁地可能位于英格兰和威尔士或北爱尔兰之外之事实使得法院行使前述权力不适当，法院可以拒绝行使前述权力。”（S.2(3) of the Act makes it clear that ss.43 and 44 apply to arbitrations with a seat outside England and Wales (such as the New York Arbitration), albeit the court “may refuse to exercise any such power if, in the opinion of the court, the fact that the seat of the arbitration is outside England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or that when designated or determined the seat is likely to be outside England and Wales or Northern Ireland, makes it inappropriate to do so”.）
《民事诉讼法》第62.5（1）条规定了向司法辖区外送达仲裁请求。其中，第62.5（1）（a）条涉及根据《1996年仲裁法》第67条、第68条和第69条对仲裁裁决提出异议的申请；第62.5（1）（b）条规定了向司法辖区外送达根据《1996年仲裁法》第44条提出的请求；第62.5（1）（c）条适用于申请人向法院寻求影响仲裁、仲裁协议或仲裁裁决的其他权利或救济的请求，且须满足：（1）仲裁地在或将在英格兰或威尔士；或（2）在没有待选定或确定之仲裁地时，由于与本司法管辖权有联系，法院认为为支持仲裁程序之目的行使其权力是适当的。（CPR 62.5(1) makes provision for service of arbitration claims out of the jurisdiction. CPR 62.5(1)(a) addresses applications to challenge arbitration awards brought under ss.67, 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. CPR62.5(1)(b) provides for service out where: “the claim is for an order under section 44 of the 1996 Act”CPR 62.5(1)(c) applies where the claimant seeks some other right or remedy from the court affecting an arbitration, arbitration agreement or arbitration award and either (i) the seat of the arbitration is or will be within England and Wales or (ii) where no seat of the arbitration has been designated or determined and, by reason of a connection with this jurisdiction, the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise its powers for the purpose of supporting the arbitralprocess.）
从以上规定来看，对于根据《1996年仲裁法》第43条提出的救济申请，法院显然无权向司法辖区外送达该申请，根据第62.5（1）（a）条和第62.5（1）（c）条送达的申请本质上仅涉及仲裁地位于英国的仲裁（或至少没有其他仲裁地）。但是，对于根据《1996年仲裁法》第44条提出的救济申请，并不要求与本司法辖区有联系。（It will be apparent (as one would expect) that there is no power to serve an application for relief under s.43 of the Arbitration Act 1996 out of the jurisdiction, and that the power to serve applications under CPR 62.5(1)(a) and (c) is essentially concerned with arbitrations with an English seat (or at least no other seat). However, for applications for relief under s.44 of the Arbitration Act 1996, there is no required nexus with this jurisdiction at the gateway stage before service out can be effected, beyond the fact that the application in question is for relief under s.44.）
2. 向非仲裁当事人送达第44条申请的相关判例
乍一看，《1996英国仲裁法》第44条的措辞似乎允许法院针对非当事人作出命令。第44（1）条规定，法院可为仲裁程序之目的，就仲裁程序的所列事项作出命令，就如同它为诉讼目的对与诉讼有关的事项作出裁定。该规定似乎表明法院可以向非仲裁当事人作出命令，如同它可以向非诉讼当事人作出命令一样。但是，经过分析，情况其实更加复杂，这可以从一些先例中清楚地体现出来。（At first blush, the language of s.44 lends some support to the Claimants' argument that orders can be made against non-parties. The language of s.44(1) –providing the court has same power in relation to the matters mentioned as it has for the purposes of and in relation to legal proceedings – would suggest that, in the provisions which follow, the Court has the same power to make orders against non-parties to the arbitration as it would in legal proceedings to make orders against non-parties to the litigation. Further, s.44(2)(a), the provision specifically in issue here, refers to "the taking of evidence of witnesses", which might suggest that it is principally concerned with securing evidence from witnesses who are not in the control of the arbitrating parties. However, on analysis, the position is more complex, as becomes clear from a review of the authorities.）
在Commerce and Industry Insurance Co of Canada v Certain Underwriters atLloyd's [2002] 1 WLR 1323案中，一方当事人根据《民事诉讼法》第44（2）（a）条请求为仲裁地不在英格兰和威尔士的仲裁程序向证人取证。该案法官认为其有权根据第44（2）（a）条直接对不情愿出庭的证人作出命令，但是当事人对于法院根据第44（2）条所享有的权力是否仅限于向仲裁当事人作出命令的问题并未展开辩论。最后该案法官决定行使自由裁量权拒绝根据第44（2）（a）条向非仲裁当事人作出命令。
在Cruz City I Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Limited [2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm)案中，一方当事人为协助仲裁裁决的执行，试图向司法辖区外送达一份针对仲裁协议非当事人的冻结令申请。该案法官认为，法院根据第44条所享有的权力不包括向非当事人作出命令（the better view was that s.44 did not include any power to make an orderagainst a non-party）。
在DTEK Trading SA v Morozov [2017] EWHC 1704(Comm)一案中，该案申请人请求根据《民事诉讼法》第62.5（1）（b）条向非当事人送达第44条申请，该案法官赞同Cruz City案的观点认为，只能对仲裁当事人提出第44条申请。
法院认为，Cruz City案和DTEK案的推理具有说服力，这两份裁定也代表了商事法庭对这一问题的两种最普遍和最新的处理方法。在最近的Trans-Oil InternationalSA v Savoy Trading KP [2020] EWHC 57 (Comm)案中，该案法官在审理针对非当事人的冻结令申请时适用了前述两份裁定，并认为申请人没有提出实质性论点说明为何法院不应遵循这两个先例（no substantive arguments were advanced on behalf of the applicant as to why this court should not follow the decisions in those two authorities, which considered in detail the cases relied upon by the applicant, and in which the judges gave reasoned decisions）。
因此，法院决定遵循Cruz City案和DTEK案的裁定。如果申请人要说服法院其根据《仲裁法》第44（2）（a）条有权向非当事人作出命令，申请人必须将本案与Cruz City案和DTEK案的推理区分开来（If, therefore, the Claimants are to succeed in establishing before me that the Court has jurisdiction to make an order against the Third Defendant under s.44(2)(a), they need to distinguish the present application from the reasoning in Cruz City and DTEK, and this was essentially the course which Ms Rosen Peacocke took before me）。
为此，申请人提出了以下两个论点将本案与Cruz City案和DTEK案进行区分：（1）《仲裁法》第42（2）（a）条涉及向证人取证，该项允许对非当事人作出命令，即使第42（2）条的其他项规定并非如此。（2）在Cruz City案和DTEK案中，对非当事人作出命令的困难在于需要向其他司法辖区送达申请，但本案不存在此种情况，因为本案的第三被申请人居住在本司法辖区。
针对上述第一个论点，法院根据如下理由予以反驳：首先，从第44条的措辞来看，第44（1）条的引导词适用于第44（2）条的所有规定。在缺乏措辞表明在这方面要对第44条下的条款作区别对待的情况下，认为法院的一些权力可以对非当事人行使，另一些权力则不能，这样的论点缺乏说服力。（In any event, the argument that some powers under s.44(2) can be exercised against non-parties and others cannot is not an attractive argument in the absence of some language justifying a differential treatment of the various sub-sections in this respect.）其次，即使根据第44(2)(a)条，英国法院向外国法院发送向非当事人获取证据的信函，这些信函也不是针对非当事人的强制命令，而是向外国法院提出的请求，外国法院可以选择对潜在证人行使自己的强制权力，也可以选择不行使这种权力，即英国法院对于在国外的证人没有直接的管辖权来迫使他作证。最后，根据第44(2)(a)条对非当事人证人作出强制令的申请，可能会比根据该条款其他项提出的申请所引起的问题更为复杂。（Finally, applications for coercive orders against non-party witnesses under s.44(2)(a) might be said to raise additional complications over and above those which arise in relation to such applications under other sub-sections.）《1996年仲裁法》第43条已经规定对确保证人作证作出了具体规定，但规定了两条第44条所没有的限制。如果第44（2）条不适用于非当事人，那么也不能根据44（2）（a）条对非当事人证人作出强制命令。（It might be said that, if s.44(2) orders cannot generally be made against non-parties, it would be surprising if coercive orders could nonetheless be made against non-party witnesses under s.44(2)(a), when s.43 already makes specific provision for securing the attendance of witnesses, but does so subject to two limitations which are not found in s.44.）
针对上述第二个论点，法院反驳道，根据《民事诉讼法》第62.5（1）（b）条向司法辖区外送达申请仅要求当事人的“申请是根据《仲裁法》第44条作出命令”，简言之，根据《仲裁法》第44条针对非当事人的申请之所以失败并不是因为无法向司法辖区外送达该申请，而是因为第44条不适用于非当事人。”（However, the gateway for service out created by CPR 62.5(1)(b) requires nothing more than that “the claim is for an order under section 44 of the 1996 Act”. In summary, the position is not that applications against non-parties under s.44 have failed because it is not possible to serve those applications out of the jurisdiction. It is that applications to serve s.44 claims against non-parties out of the jurisdiction have failed because s.44 has been held not to apply to non-parties.）
综上所述，法院遵循Cruz City案和DTEK案的推理认为，法院根据《仲裁法》第44条无权向仲裁协议的非当事人作出命令。同时，法院还认为，在无需向司法辖区外送达的情况下，这两个案件的推理同样适用于根据《仲裁法》第42（2）（a）条提出的申请。因此，法院驳回了申请人的请求。
三、评论
本案涉及的问题是，对于仲裁程序，法院是否可以根据第44（1）（a）条向非仲裁当事人下达取证命令，要求其提供证人证据以供仲裁程序使用。
《1996年仲裁法》第44条规定：“（1）除非当事人另有约定，为仲裁程序之目的，法院有权就仲裁程序的下列事项作出命令，就如同它为诉讼目的对与诉讼有关的事项作出裁定。（2）此类事项是：（a）获取证人的证据……”
初一看，法院似乎可以向包括非仲裁当事人在内的任何人下达获取证据的命令，但现有的判例表明情况并非如此。法院遵循Cruz City案和DTEK案的推理认为，法院根据《1996年仲裁法》第44（1）（a）条为支持仲裁只能向仲裁协议的当事人作出获取证人证据的命令，而不能向非当事人作出该命令。在确保证人作证方面，适用的条款应当是《1996年仲裁法》第43条，根据该条款，确保证人作证须满足两个条件，即（a）证人在联合王国，及（b）仲裁程序是在英格兰和威尔士，或者北爱北兰进行。