2020年2月14日，在Gazprom Export LLC v DDI Holdings Ltd [2020] EWHC 303 (Comm)一案中，原告和第四被告之前在ICC进行仲裁，第四被告主张原告违反竞争法，该主张被ICC仲裁庭驳回。之后，原告起诉第四被告和其他被告，而被告方再次主张原告违反竞争法，原告则依赖该ICC裁决主张其没有违反竞争法这一点属于已决争议点，申请法院驳回被告方的主张。英格兰及威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法庭认定，被告一方中很多成员不属于之前的ICC裁决的当事人，因此他们另案起诉不构成滥用程序。虽然法院驳回原告申请可能会导致日后法院审查案件后作出原告违反竞争法的认定，进而和ICC裁决的已决争议点的认定产生冲突，但关于ICC裁决的问题是具体承认和执行的时候的问题，是另案问题，不是本案需要考虑的问题，因此驳回原告主张。
一、背景介绍
第一，第二，第三，第五和第六被告（主要被告）主张原告滥用程序，而原告申请驳回他们的主张。
原告向保加利亚提供了天然气，为此，原告与第四被告成立一家合资公司，原告通过合资公司持有第四被告50%的股份。第四被告拥有第三被告的绝大部分股权，而第三被告向保加利亚的消费者销售天然气。
原告和第四被告曾签订天然气供应合同，后来原告停止了天然气供应，并主张第四被告拖欠合同款项。第四被告则主张原告违反欧盟和保加利亚竞争法，对原告提起ICC仲裁并申请仲裁庭对将合同项下的款项进行抵销。仲裁庭驳回第四被告提出的原告违反竞争法的主张。
而原告在英格兰提起本案诉讼，主张被告使用股权计划稀释第四被告在第三被告中的股份，以让原告难以从第四被告处追回欠款，因此原告要求被告赔偿损失。第三被告在其反诉中，以及除第三被告以外的被告在其答辩状中，都主张原告违反竞争法，以此作为其抗辩和反诉，而原告则以仲裁庭已经驳回了这些主张为由，申请法院驳回被告的抗辩和反诉。
被告一方的主要论点是，被告一方不存在滥用程序的问题，理由是在原告与第四被告之间的仲裁处理的是第四被告所在的天然气批发和交易市场上的竞争法问题，而本案的诉讼程序则涉及的是第三被告的天然气零售和分销市场，因此第三被告在本案中主张的损失救济并不能在仲裁程序中进行处理，本案与之前的仲裁案件不同。
二、法院认定
法院首先认为并无迹象表明除第四被告外的其他被告受到ICC裁决的既判力（res judicata）或争议点禁反言（issue estoppel）拘束（Accordingly, there is no suggestion in this application that the Principal Defendants are bound by the findings in the ICC Award by reason of estoppel per rem judicatam (res judicata) or issue estoppel, as Overgas Inc is so bound.）因此其审查的主要出发点是禁止滥用程序。
1、禁止滥用程序
在禁止滥用程序原则方面，法院认为，仅当在之后的争议解决程序中重新提起相同问题，或允许再次提起诉讼会显然对一方当事人不利，而由此致使法院的司法工作丧失公信力时，才构成滥用程序（There will be an abuse of process only if (a) it would be manifestly unfair to a party to the later proceedings that the same issues should be relitigated or (b) to permit such re-litigation would bring the administration of justice into disrepute (Hunter; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2003] EWCA Civ 321; [2004] Ch 1, para. 38). These two limbs of abuse of process reflect the private interest of a party not to be vexed twice with the same allegation and the public interest of the state in not having issues repeatedly litigated (Michael Wilson v Sinclair, para. 48).）。客观上而言，并不存在当事人被禁止请求法院做出与先前其他案例相冲突的裁判的一般性的原则（There is no general rule preventing a party inviting the Court to arrive at a decision inconsistent with that arrived in an earlier case (Michael Wilson v Sinclair, para. 94). It is not sufficient for such an abuse of process to be found to exist merely because the earlier proceedings had been fairly conducted and that the issue had been the subject of lengthy evidence and argument. There must be some "special reason" why the facts of the case make the determination in the current proceedings of the issue which has been determined in earlier proceedings an abuse of process (Bragg v Oceanus).）。
不仅如此，仅由于前案的程序是公正的并且因为该争议点上已经有过冗长的证据和论证，并不足以认定后案申请属于滥用程序。必须在事实有特殊原因才会导致后案成为滥用程序（It will be a rare case where the litigation of an issue which has previously been decided, but not between the same parties or their privies, will amount to an abuse of process (In re Norris, para. 26; Michael Wilsonv Sinclair, para. 68; cf. Laing v Taylor Walton, para. 25). This indicates that there must be a "special reason" (or "positive reason") contributing to the conclusion that there has been an abuse of process (Bragg v Oceanus).）。虽然先前有过已决争议点，但是若该已决争议点并不适用于同一案的当事人或其代理，则后案在不同当事人之间就同一问题再次进行起诉很少会构成滥用程序。
而且，前案是仲裁的情况下则后案也可能会有滥用程序的情况，但仲裁本身具有特殊性，仲裁程序的相对性导致其他有关方无法进入仲裁程序成为当事人，而这也是在认定之后的争议解决程序是否构成滥用程序的相关考虑因素（There may be an abuse of process where the decision of an earlier proceeding is an arbitration award (Arts & Antiques v Richards, para.45-46). That said, the fact that arbitration is a private process to which other parties may not have access is a relevant consideration in determining whether the advancing of an allegation in later proceedings is an abuse of process (Sun Life v Lincoln; Michael Wilson v Sinclair, para. 54, 67-68).）。
而法院在认定是否存在滥用程序时必须基于案情对案件事实进行细致分析，同时考虑当事人不应就同一指控受双重讼累的私人法益和一事不再理的公共法益（In order to determine whether there is an abuse of process, the Court" must engage in a close 'merits based' analysis of the facts", taking into account the relevant private and public interests (Michael Wilson v Sinclair, para. 48; Kamoka, para. 90). There is no closed list of circumstances in which such an abuse of process may be found to exist (Hunter; Bragg v Oceanus; Johnson v Gore Wood). Indeed, there is no requirement that any of the parties to the later proceedings were a party or privy to the earlier proceedings (Ablyazov, para. 62; Michael Wilson v Sinclair, para. 48(4); Kamoka, para. 70), although it must be said that for such an abuse of process to exist, the case must be very exceptional.）。
法院对此指出了一些考虑因素，而主张对方存在滥用程序情况的当事人需承担举证责任和证明责任（The burden is on the party alleging the existence of an abuse of process, by reason of a manifest unfairness to a party or bringing the administration of justice into disrepute, to establish such abuse and the "threshold which engages the court's duty to act to prevent abuse of its process" is a high one (Michael Wilson v Sinclair, para. 87, 100).）。这些考虑因素包括：
a）指责对方滥用程序的一方在之前的程序中是否有机会提出该主张；
b）在之后的诉讼中指责对方滥用程序的一方是否也是在之前的程序中提出该主张的一方；
c）指责对方滥用程序的一方在之前的程序中是否采取了相反的立场，而对此没有令人满意的解释；
d）是否存在有将指责对方滥用程序的一方纳入之前的程序中的努力；
e）之前的程序是否在最适当的法院或仲裁庭进行，是否是在最适当的当事人之间进行；
f）希望重新对该事项进行认定的当事人的目的是否是在之后的程序中获得救济，还是以此间接推翻前案，进行附带攻击（collateral attack）；
g）有关当事人在之前的程序中是否处于不利地位或受到限制，而在之后的诉讼中则可不受任何限制。这种不利或限制包括在之前的程序中不能获取文件或其他证据；
h）在之后的诉讼中的当事人是否向之前程序的一方当事人提供了援助或资金。提供资金的权重似乎大于提供援助的权重。
2、本案与ICC裁决的事实重合度
后案主张与前案主张在多大程度上重合方面，法院认为两个案件的主张基本相同（Having considered these submissions and reviewed the allegations of breaches of competition law as pleaded in the ICC arbitration proceedings and in the Amended Defence in the English proceedings, in my judgment, the allegations made in each of the proceedings are substantially the same.）。
虽然在前案ICC仲裁案与后案本案诉讼中，当事人构建其主张的方式不同，且在前案中还主张了其他事实，但是第三被告的反诉实质上是基于在仲裁中的相同事实主张而提出的主张，同样的，其他被告在其答辩中的性质也如此（It is true to say that the argument had been formulated in different terms in the ICC arbitration proceedings than in the English proceedings, and additional facts were alleged in the ICC arbitration proceedings. Nevertheless, the counterclaim presented by Overgas Mrezhi is essentially founded upon the same factual allegations which were raised and determined in the ICC arbitration proceedings. Moreover, in both sets of proceedings, the allegations of breaches of competition law refer to both markets in which Overgas Mrezhi and Overgas Inc operated. It follows that the defence relied on by the Principal Defendants that the losses claimed by GPE were caused by breaches of competition law also raises the same allegations as raised and determined in the ICC arbitration proceedings. It is also true to say that the focus of the counterclaim in the English proceedings is on the loss sustained by Overgas Mrezhi, and the market in which it operated, rather than Overgas Inc, which operated in a different market and whose loss was the focus of the ICC arbitration proceedings. As explained below, this is a material consideration.）。
3、被告是否构成滥用程序
在滥用程序的事实情况方面，法院认为允许被告维持其主张的原告违反欧盟和保加利亚竞争法的主张并不属于滥用程序。尽管本案与前案的基础事实是相同的，但第三被告应有权就其损失提出索赔，其索赔与前案的第四被告的损失索赔主张不同（although the essential facts underlying the allegations of breaches of competition law are the same, Overgas Mrezhi should be entitled to pursue its claim for damages in respect of its own distinct loss resulting from such alleged breaches irrespective of any determination of Overgas Inc's claim）。
第四被告和其他被告在前案中并无充分或合理的机会以提出其主张，而虽然第三被告可能在前案中为第四被告提供了一些帮助，但这本身不足以构成第三被告参与仲裁的充分机会。由于缺乏仲裁协议，第三被告的主张并不能提交仲裁（Although Overgas Mrezhi may have provided some assistance to Overgas Inc, in the form of documents and/or evidence, in the latter's conduct of the ICC arbitration proceedings, that by itself is not sufficient to constitute an adequate opportunity for Overgas Mrezhi to participate in the ICC arbitration proceedings to present its claim for its own loss.）。鉴于此，仲裁裁决不得对除第四被告外的其他被告在英国的诉讼中提出的反诉或主张施加任何限制。
而且，不让第三被告有提出主张的机会将违反欧盟指令Directive 2014/104/EU第12条规定的在国内法中的违反竞争法方面的救济的司法有效性原则（To deny Overgas Mrezhi the opportunity to pursue its own claim for breaches of EU competition law would be to deny it any effective means of having its claim for damages caused by GPE's alleged anti-competitive conduct determined merely because a separate claim made by Overgas Inc has been determined in GPE's favour by the ICC Arbitral Tribunal (Courage Ltd v Crehan (Case C-453/99) [2002] QB 507, para. 26 (CJEU); Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA (C-295/04) [2006] ECR I-6619, para. 60-61 (CJEU)). Such adenial would be contrary to the principle of effectiveness.）。在这个方面，欧盟法院根据《纽约公约》，援引公共政策拒绝裁决的承认和执行的思路是一致的——欧盟法院要求成员国国内法院来认定是否存在违反欧盟竞争法的问题，若有则构成该公共秩序（This approach is consistent with the approach adopted by the CJEU in refusing arbitral awards recognition or enforcement under the New York Convention on the grounds of public policy where a breach of EU competition law is alleged, by requiring the national court of a Member State to determine whether there has been any breach of EU competition law (Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV(C126/97) [2000] 5 CMLR 816, para. 31-39).）。
此外，仲裁案审理中的披露模式是依照请求而进行的，而本案中法院采用了更广泛的披露模式，而这也是一个重要的考虑因素。
不仅如此，没有无证据表明除第四被告外的其他被告在本案中对前案仲裁裁决进行了附带攻击（collateral attack）以推翻前案裁决的终局性（There is no evidence to suggestt hat the Principal Defendants are engaged in a collateral attack on the ICC Arbitral Tribunal's decision.）。
4、本案是否会与ICC裁决产生冲突
然而，法官认为，本案的法院判决和ICC裁决的结果可能会产生不一致情况，可能会对ICC裁决在英格兰1996《仲裁法》和《纽约公约》项下的承认或执行产生潜在影响，但是对于裁决的承认与执行仅仅局限于仲裁协议双方。原告律师主张如果法院在本案的实体审理的过程中认定原告的确违反了竞争法，则可能导致该ICC裁决在未来可能不能被承认或执行，因此这方面有公共利益。然而，本案法院认为该ICC裁决是否被承认和执行是当事人到时候自行提出申请的时候才需要去考虑和决定的，而不是本案中法院需要关心的事情。因此即便存在这种可能，法官也认为不该改变其对本案的决定（This brings me to an additional point which was the subject of some oral argument, as well as being addressed in the parties' written skeleton arguments, namely the recognition due to be given to the ICC Award under sect.101 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and the New York Convention. Both parties appeared to accept that the recognition which is to be given to an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act 1996 is limited in its binding effect to the parties to that award. Accordingly, I do not understand how that could affect the freedom of the Principal Defendants to pursue their allegations of breaches of competition law. I think Mr Choo-Choy QC's point was that if the Court were to allow the Principal Defendants to argue that GPE conducted itself vis a vis Overgas Inc in an anti-competitive manner and if the Court were to make a finding to that effect, that would give rise to an inconsistency between the Court's judgment and the ICC Award with the possible effect that the ICC Award would be denied recognition or enforcement. It is in this respect that the public interest would be engaged. Whether the ICC Award should or should not be denied recognition or enforcement is a matter to be considered upon a relevant application being made. In any event, this is not a consideration which causes me to change my decision on GPE's application.）。
由此，法院驳回了原告的关于驳回被告主张的原告存在违反竞争法情形因此需要对他们进行赔偿的申请。虽然这些申请中的主张与之前的ICC仲裁程序中的主张基本相同，但这并构成对法院程序的滥用，理由是两个案件的当事人并不重合，而且这么做对原告并无不公平（in permitting the Principal Defendants to pursue the allegations of breaches of competition law against GPE, there is no manifest unfairness to GPE and this does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute by allowing the Court's process to be used as an instrument of oppression, injustice or unfairness）。
三、评论
本案主要涉及滥用程序方面——在之前存在仲裁案而之后存在诉讼案的情况下，涉案问题该如何处理的问题。从本案判决看来，这是一个与既判力问题或争议点禁反言问题相并列的另一个可能使得法院驳回当事人申请的理由。在本案中，法官也强调了若前后案件的当事人并不完全相同的情况下，除非存在特殊原因，否则后案一般不会构成滥用程序，从而使得法院可以驳回申请。
虽然在前后两个案件中的有关原告违反竞争法的主张和基本事实都是相同的，但法官在本案中认为重点是第三被告在其运作的市场中的损失，而在前案ICC仲裁中涉及的是第四被告在另一个市场的损失。此外，由于第三被告不是ICC仲裁案的仲裁协议的当事人，因此无法在该仲裁程序中提出索赔。不仅如此，若法院拒绝给第三被告提出原告违反竞争法的主张的机会，则会违反欧盟法上的司法有效性原则。
本案的一个特别的问题在于，由于ICC裁决不拘束除了第四被告以外的其他被告，当事人的申请和法官的裁判理由都是基于滥用程序而进行的，而不是根据ICC仲裁裁决的既判力或者争议点禁反言问题而提出的，因此本案判决绕开了这一点，而未来的ICC裁决和英格兰法院的判决冲突是间接冲突而非直接冲突。只有法院否定了前案ICC裁决的既判力才会造成直接冲突。