2020年2月5日，在Fimbank PLC v Discover Investment Corp [2020] EWHC 254 (Comm))一案中，英格兰与威尔士高等法院（以下简称法院）认为，货物是根据提单持有人的授权在不出具提单的情况下从船舶存放到保税仓库，随后凭借伪造单据被提取而导致了提单所有人的损失。船舶所有人的无单放货行为符合提单持有人的预期，提单持有人的损失并非由于船舶所有人无单放货所导致，故原告对船舶所有人提起的索赔缺乏良好的可争辩的论点（a good arguable case），其向船舶所有人提起的仲裁很难胜诉。因此，法院认为针对船舶所有人的资产冻结令应予以解除。
一、案情介绍
本案是一起提单纠纷。原告Fimbank是一家银行，根据其与AOS Dubai（货物买方）签订的《财务协议》成为提单合法持有人，被告为船舶所有人，AOS Egypt（与AOS Dubai是关联企业）为提单显示的被通知方。2018年4月，在未提交正本提单的情况下，船舶所有人根据承租人出具的以国际保赔协会标准措辞拟定的保函将货物交付给被通知方AOS Egypt。AOS Egypt代表AOS Dubai通过驳船从船上接收货物（其中包含提单所涉货物），并将货物存放到保税仓库，等待最终的买方提取货物。
根据原告与AOS Dubai于2017年12月20日签订的《财务协议》，货物的卖方将正本提单递交给原告银行取得货款。原告作为托收行将提单转交给埃及的代收行，待最终买方凭单付款后释放提单，而此时离船舶卸货已经过去很久了。按照协议，船舶将在无正本提单的情况下凭保函卸货并将货物存放在保税仓库，货物的数量由原告同意的仓储管理人监管并向原告发送每日的出货报告。如果计划顺利，最终的买方在向代收行支付货款后取得提单，并根据提单向保税仓库提取货物。
事实上，如原告与AOS Dubai的协议中所预料，船舶所有人根据保函卸货，货物被存放到保税仓库。原告、AOS Dubai和仓储管理人签订《三方仓储管理协议》，仓储管理人负责监管货物并向原告发送每日出货报告，监视涉案提单货物之外的货物的出库情况。但与计划相反的是，涉案提单货物根据伪造的单据也被逐渐提出仓库，直到提单所涉货物都被挪用。
2019年3月底，原告与被告谈判达成《中止协议（standstill agreement）》，被告承诺在中止期间不出售船舶，原告承诺不扣押或干涉船舶的使用。2019年6月21日，中止期届满。被告请求延长中止期限，但遭到原告的拒绝。2019年6月24日，被告出售船舶。2019年6月26日，原告根据提单仲裁条款在伦敦向被告提起仲裁，指控被告未凭正本提单放货。2019年7月4日，原告得知被告出售了船舶。为支持仲裁，2019年8月7日，原告请求法院签发资产冻结令但未获得准许。2019年8月22日，原告再次提出申请并最终获得准许。现在，原告提出本案申请，请求延长资产冻结令的期限，被告提出反申请，请求解除资产冻结令。
二、法院认定
1. 可争辩的论点（a good arguable case）
被告认为，原告与AOS Dubai签订《财务协议》，后原告、AOS Dubai和仓储管理人签订《三方仓储管理协议》，货物根据仓储协议存放到保税仓库是原告想要的结果，被告承担的责任不应当大于直接将货物交付给原告的情况，例如，被告将货物交付于原告拥有和控制的场所，但货物随后被盗。在这种情况下，原告不能基于被告在将货物交付给原告时未坚持要求出具提单而认为被告应当为货物的丢失承担责任。
原告认为其与AOS Dubai和仓储管理人签订的协议并未传达给被告，故这些协议与被告的责任无关。
法院指出，根据《三方仓储管理协议》第2.3.4条，“AOS应从卸货港接收货物，并将货物护送至仓库/筒仓，以确保货物完好无损，且不得以任何有损Fimbank利益的方式被挪用（AOS shall take delivery of the Goods from the Port of discharge and escort the Goods to the Warehouse(s)/Silo(s) to ensure that the Goods are intact and not appropriated in any way inimical to the interest of Fimbank". For completeness, I should be clear that all references in those quotes to 'AOS' are, of course, references to AOS Dubai）。”法院认为，根据该条，AOS Dubai是根据提单持有人原告的授权在不出具提单的情况下从船舶接收货物。
一直存在争议的是，船舶所有人向有权收货的一方交付货物，但该方不出示提单，是否完全不违反提单合同，或者违反了提单合同但只对该方承担象征性损害赔偿（There has been debate whether a shipowner delivering to the party entitled, but without production by that party of the bills of lading, is not in breach of the bill of lading contract at all or is in breach but liable to that party only for nominal damages）。
法院认为，原告没有将AOS Dubai已获授权告知被告，这一点无关紧要。它可以排除表见授权的争论；这意味着，被告在如此行事时须向提单持有人（就当前目的而言，假定是原告）就AOS Dubai是否确实获得接受交付的授权承担风险。但是，实际上，这种风险不会发生，因为AOS Dubai确实获得了接受交付的授权（That the claimant had not told the defendant that AOS Dubai was so authorised would not matter. It would preclude an argument of ostensible authority; it would mean, therefore, that the defendant acted at risk vis-à-vis the holder of the bills of lading – in the event, I assume for present purposes, the claimant – as to whether AOS Dubai had indeed been authorised by it to take delivery. But, on the facts, that risk would not have eventuated, since AOS Dubai was so authorised）。另外，《三方仓储管理协议》不能解读为要求AOS Dubai亲自接收货物，相比于通过目的港的代理（如AOS Egypt）执行。
法院认为，原告对被告的未来索赔很难主张因果关系，因为《三方仓储管理协议》实际上已经成功完成，直到保税仓库后来根据伪造单据放货，而这在法院看来与被告船舶所有人没有法律或事实上的关系。（Even then, in my judgment formidable difficulties of causation would confront the prospective claim, since the SMAarrangements were in fact successfully accomplished, up to the point only thatthe bonded warehouse later released cargo against forged documents. That, as itseems to me, had nothing to do legally or factually with the defendantshipowner. In particular, it had no connection whatever to the fact that, asintended by the claimant and required by its financing arrangements, includingthe SMA itself, the discharge of the cargo and delivery of it by the defendantto AOS Egypt was without production to the defendant of any bills of lading.）简而言之，法院认为，没有充分理由证明被告对实质性损害负有责任，以证明批准或延长冻结令具有正当性。（In short, in my view, there is no good arguable case that the defendant has a liability for substantial damages such as might have justified the grant of a freezing order or might justify its continuation.）
原告的律师辩称，被告有义务在收回正本提单之前保持对货物的控制，如果被告坚持凭提单放货，损失就不会发生。对此，法院认为，在原告有意制定的合同和事实安排中，导致损失的唯一有效原因并非被告船舶所有人未凭借（原告本不打算出具或提交给船舶所有人的）提单放货，而是由于原告成为与船舶所有人无关的欺诈行为（根据伪造单据从仓库提走货物）的受害者而使岸上的安排中断。（in my judgment in the contractual and factual set-up deliberately structured here by the claimant, the effective cause and the only effective cause of loss is not the shipowner's discharge of the cargo otherwise than against bills of lading that the claimant had no intention of presenting to the ship or allowing the shipowner to take, but rather the breakdown in the arrangements ashore by way of the claimant becoming the victim of a fraud that had nothing to do with the shipowner.）
法院认为，由于没有良好的可争辩的论点，冻结令应当予以解除。（In my judgment, the freezing order in this case, therefore, falls to be discharged, on the basis that there is no good arguable case and on the basis that the factual circumstances relevant to, and a serious analysis of, the possible merits of the claimant's intended substantive claim were not fully and fairly presented to the court ex parte.）
2. 资产流失的风险
在案情方面这涉及两个要素：一是是否存在资产流失的风险，二是关于未披露的抱怨。
被告认为本案不涉及在某个点上是否存在资产流失的风险，而在于被告没有可供流失的资产，因为作为单船公司的被告已经出售船舶。另外，被告拒绝披露船舶出售价款的去向。法院认为，被告不太可能在短时间内将出售船舶的价款挥霍掉，即使没有以被告名义持有的现金或其他资产，至少存在一些由出售船舶的价款转化而成的以某种形式持有或其他有价值的权利或资产。鉴于被告拒绝披露船舶出售价款的去向，法院对被告作不利推论，认为被告仍持有有价值的资产或权利。法院认为，被告自始至终的行为，就其实质而言，不可否认地表明，如果它确实仍然持有宝贵的资产，就存在资产流失的风险，逃避今后的任何执行程序。（Its conduct throughout, as I have already indicated, then, in substance admittedly on its part, demonstrates that if it indeed it remains in possession of valuable assets, there is a risk that those assets will be dissipated such that they are not still there for any future enforcement.）
关于未披露的抱怨，法院认为这是一个严重问题。原告没有告知法院其暴露于此种资产流失风险的原因是由于原告拒绝了被告延长《中止协议》的请求，也没有就此对法院作出解释。（Those, it might be thought trenchant, conclusions having been stated, it might be wondered how there can be a non-disclosure complaint in relation to the question of risk of dissipation. However, there is in fact a serious question of non-disclosure here. That is because the court was not told that the only reason why the claimant was exposed to such dissipation risk as the defendant represented was because the claimant had refused, for reasons which ex hypothesi it did not explain to the court ex parte and which neither for that matter has it sought to explain to the court inter partes, to extend the standstill agreement.）如果原告同意延长《中止协议》，没有任何根据表明被告会违背义务将船舶出售从而引发资产流失的风险。尽管法院已经对被告在出售船舶后的行为得出了结论（即认为存在资产流失的风险），但法院认为，在这种情况下的不披露足以构成解除冻结令的理由。（I regard that non-disclosure in the circumstances as sufficiently serious as to justify the discharge of the freezing order, notwithstanding my conclusions as to the behaviour of the defendant after the sale was completed.）
3. 违反保证
在通常情况下，所签发的冻结令会记录原告对法院作出的保证，保证的内容包括尽快送达仲裁请求表提出请求，尽快将原告在法院单方面援用的证据，延长冻结令的申请，以及法官签发冻结令的判决通知送达被告。虽然不要求原告向被告送达完整的庭审记录，但根据长期以来的法律，在提交此种救济的单方申请时，原告的代理人应当向被告送达完整的庭审记录（In the normal way, when granted, the freezing order recorded that undertakings had been given to the court. They included undertakings as soon as practicable to issue and serve an arbitration claim form to pursue the freezing order claim in court and to serve on the respondent as soon as practicable the evidence relied on before the court ex parte, its application for the continuation of the freezing order, and a note of the judgment given by Moulder J when making the order. There was no undertaking requiring the claimant to provide a full note of the hearing. However, it has long been the law that, when making an ex parte application for this sort of relief, those representing the applicant must make and provide to the defendant a full note of the hearing; they should do so without being asked and, therefore, whether or not it is the subject of any undertaking. That is set out in the Commercial Court Guide, at paragraph F2.5.）
法院查明，在本案中，原告在获得冻结令后的13天（冻结令原到期日之前的2天）才签发仲裁请求表，存在很大延误（The claimant in the event issued its arbitration claim form only some 13 days after it obtained the freezing order and just two days before the original return date）。原告律师向被告律师送达单方申请所需的概要论点方面也存在迟延，尽管该迟延更为轻微（it is also a matter of regret that there was a delay in the provision to the defendant's solicitors of the skeleton argument that had been used exparte, although that was a more minor delay）。就原告所作保证中要求送达的文件方面，法院认为这些文件已经被尽快送达。
对于原告违反保证未尽快签发仲裁请求表的行为，以及原告律师未尽快将法院的庭审记录送达被告的行为，法院表达了不满，但是法院认为，如果在案情方面有良好的论据，法院不会因为这些缺陷而解除冻结令。（Doing the best I can, and although I have expressed a degree of dissatisfaction with the way in which the undertaking to issue the arbitration claim form came not to be complied with, and the important obligation fully to inform the defendant promptly of what the court had been told at the ex parte hearing was not satisfied, I do not think those failings would in this case have called for the freezing order to be discharged, if there had been a good arguable case on the merits.）
综上所述，法院认为资产冻结令应予以解除，故驳回了原告延长资产冻结令的请求，并支持了被告解除资产冻结令的请求。
三、评论
在本案中，作为提单持有人的原告与货物买方AOS Dubai签订《财务协议》，后原告、AOS Dubai和仓储管理人签订《三方仓储管理协议》，设想在不出具提单的情况下将货物存放到保税仓库，并由仓储管理人负责监管并报告货物出库情况。计划顺利实施，直到出现了如下意外，即货物因伪造的单据从保税仓库中提取。法院认为，虽然原告没有将AOS Dubai已获得接受货物交付的授权告知被告船舶所有人，但这一点无关紧要。原告对被告船舶所有人的未来索赔将面临很大的因果关系困难，在原告有意制定的合同和事实安排中，导致损失的唯一有效原因并非船舶所有人的无单放货行为，而是由于与船舶所有人无关的岸上欺诈行为（根据伪造单据从仓库提走货物）。尽管法院认为确实存在资产流失的风险，但鉴于原告对被告的未来索赔很难成功，法院裁定解除针对被告的资产冻结令。