2019年11月14日，在GM1 and GM2 v KC [2019] HKCFI 2793一案中，香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭（以下简称法院）认为，禁诉令属于《仲裁条例》第45条和《高等法院条例》第21L条所指的临时措施，法院有权根据这两条规定签发禁诉令。另外，虽然第二原告不是《担保协议》及其仲裁协议的当事人，但如果仲裁协议可以解释为不仅包括对缔约当事人（如第一原告）的申索，而且包括对缔约当事人的非缔约附属或关联公司（如第二原告）的申索，则可以针对第三方提起的相关诉讼授予禁诉令救济。

一、背景介绍

第一原告与被告签订了《担保协议》，并在争议发生后根据该协议进行了涉案的待决仲裁程序。第一原告与被告的全资子公司进行了一项相关仲裁。但由于当事人对仲裁庭的组成提出异议，仲裁庭不能就仲裁程序中的临时措施申请立即作出决定。

2019年10月28日，原告请求法院签发禁诉令，要求被告采取必要措施撤回或终止其在苏州法院针对原告提起的诉讼程序；除根据《担保协议》第18条提起仲裁程序外，限制被告在中国内地或其他地方就因《担保协议》引起或与之有关的任何争议、申索、分歧或争论提起任何其他法律程序。

法院对原告的禁诉令申请作出如下认定。

二、法院认定

被告认为，当一方当事人根据仲裁协议申请禁诉令限制另一方当事人提起外国法律程序时，判断司法管辖权的依据是《高等法院条例》第21L条，而不是《仲裁条例》第45条。为此，被告援引Ever Judger Holding Co Ltd v Kroman Celik [2015] 3 HKC 246案的判决以支持其观点。该案法官在附带意见中表示其质疑禁诉令是否属于《仲裁条例》第45条所指的“临时措施”救济，因为禁诉令并不涉及仲裁程序的启动和进行，而只是限制提起其他违反仲裁协议的法律程序，禁诉令是“与仲裁协议有关的”措施，而不是《仲裁条例》第45条所指的“与任何仲裁程序有关的”措施（There, Lam J observed (obiter) tha the had doubts whether an anti-suit injunction falls within the remedy of “interim measure” under section 45 of the Arbitration Ordinance, since an anti-suit injunction was not concerned with the institution and prosecution of arbitral proceedings, but with the restraint of pursuit of other proceedings in breach of an arbitral agreement, to be a measure “in relation to the arbitral agreement”, and“not in relation to any arbitral proceedings” within the scope of section 45）。

法院表示不同意对《仲裁条例》第45条和第35条就《示范法》和《仲裁条例》下临时措施的含义作出如此狭隘的解释（With the greatest respect, I do not agree that such a narrow interpretation should be placed on sections 45 and 35 of the Arbitration Ordinance, as to the meaning of interim measures under the Model Law and the Arbitration Ordinance）。法院援引了Millett大法官在The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep87 and Donahue v Armco Inc [2002] CLC 440案中的经典判决认为，法院享有“不容置疑的管辖权”以限制一方当事人违反仲裁协议而提起或继续在外国法院的诉讼程序。

The Angelic Grace案的原则也在香港法院得到适用。例如，在最近的Giorgio Armani SpA v Elan Clothes Co Ltd [2019] 2 HKLRD 313案中，该案法官认为香港法院有权根据《仲裁条例》第45条和《高等法院条例》第21L条签发禁诉令，作为与仲裁程序有关的临时措施（In that case, the learned Deputy Judge Field observed that the Hong Kong Court has power under both section 45 of the Arbitration Ordinance and section 21L of the High Court Ordinance to grant an anti-suit injunction as an interim measure in relation to arbitral proceedings）。尤其是，Hoffman勋爵在其重要演讲中支持了Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40的观点认为，解释仲裁条款时应当首先假定，作为理性商人的当事人很可能打算将因其达成的关系所引起的任何争议提交给同一仲裁庭决定，除非所采用的语言明确表明当事人有意将某些问题排除在仲裁员的管辖之外（the construction of an arbitration clause should start with the presumption that the parties, as rational businessmen, are likely to have intended any dispute arising out of the relationship in which they have entered to be decided by the same tribunal, unless the language makes it clear that certain questions were intended to be excluded from the arbitrator’s jurisdiction）。

被告律师援引最高法院在AESUst-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] 1 WLR 1889案中的判决并认为，即使提起外国法律程序违反了仲裁条款，“适当的流程是由外国法院在审理案件时承认和执行当事人的管辖约定”，本案法院签发禁令必须存在特殊理由，从而剥夺中国内地法院就仲裁协议的效力行使适当管辖权（even where foreign proceedings are brought in breach of an arbitration clause, “the appropriate course will be to leave it to the foreign court to recognize and enforce the parties’ agreement on forum”, and that there should be exceptional reasons before this Court should grant the Injunction in this case, thereby depriving the Mainland court from exercising its proper jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the arbitration agreement）。

《仲裁条例》第45条和第35条涉及法院的临时措施，且所采用的语言与1996年《英国仲裁法》第44条不同。《仲裁条例》第35条采纳了《示范法》第17条的规定，“临时措施”的定义规定在第17（2）条，“临时措施是裁决书作出之前的任何短期措施，裁定一方当事人实施以下任何行为：（a）以争议裁决之前维持现状或恢复原状；（b）采取行动防止目前或即将对仲裁程序发生的危害或损害，或不采取可能造成这种危害或损害的行动；（c）提供保全资产以执行后继裁决；或（d）对解决争议可能具有相关性和重要性的证据保全。”（Under section 35 of the Arbitration Ordinance, Article 17 of the Model Law is adopted, and “interim measure” is defined in Article 17 (2) to mean any temporary measure by which, at any time prior to the issuance of the award by which the dispute is finally decided, a party is ordered to take action, or to act. An interim measure under Article 17(2) includes an order to: (a) maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute: and (b) take action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process itself.....）

《仲裁条例》第45条应当结合《仲裁条例》第3条规定的条例目的和原则进行解读。条例的目的，是促进在省却非必要开支的情况下，借仲裁而公平及迅速地解决争议。条例建基于以下原则——（a）除须奉行为公众利益而属必要的保障措施外，争议各方应有协议应该如何解决争议的自由；及（b）法院应只在本条例明文规定的情况下，才干预争议的仲裁。（Section 45 of the Arbitration Ordinance should be read in the light of the object and principles of the Ordinance, as set out in section 3. The object of the Arbitration Ordinance is to facilitate the fair and speedy resolution of disputes by arbitration without unnecessary expense, and the Ordinance is based on the important principle that the parties to a dispute should be free to agree on how the dispute should be resolved. Enforcement of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards are the primary objectives of the Arbitration Ordinance.）

行使当事人将争议提交仲裁的积极承诺和不受外国法律程序干扰的消极权利的禁令可以被视为一项临时命令，该命令用于维持当事人已开始仲裁（根据仲裁协议赋予的权利）的现状（An injunction to enforce the positive promise of a party to arbitrate disputes and the negative right not to be vexed by foreign proceedings can be viewed as an interim order which maintains the status quo of parties which have already commenced their arbitration, as in this case, in accordance with the rights conferred under their arbitration agreement）。禁诉令能够限制当事人提起那些违反仲裁协议的法律程序，继续此种法律程序将不可避免地对仲裁程序、仲裁庭的仲裁行为以及仲裁庭在仲裁过程中所发出的命令造成损害。因此，法院认为，禁令属于《仲裁条例》第45条所指的临时措施的范围，法院有权根据该条下达此种命令（In my judgment, the Injunction sought is within the scope of the interim measures covered by section 45 of the Arbitration Ordinance, and the Court has jurisdiction to make such an order under the section）。虽然已得出上述结论，法院进一步考虑了如果禁诉令仅专属于《高等法院条例》第21L条的临时措施范围的情况。

法院认为，即使禁令专属于《高等法院条例》第21L条的范围，被告的主张也无法得到支持。律师表示，在这种情况下，只有当满足《高等法院规则》第11号令第1（1）条时，法院才具有管辖权。针对该观点，法院认为，申请禁诉令旨在限制违反《担保协议》仲裁条款的法律程序。该仲裁条款规定将由《担保协议》引起或与之有关或与之有任何联系的争议和申索，包括与《担保协议》的存在、有效性、解释、履行和违反有关的任何争议，以及由《担保协议》引起或与之有关的非合同义务提交仲裁，由香港国际仲裁中心进行管理。由于在香港的仲裁受香港法的约束，故原告的申索属于《高等法院规则》第11号令第1（1）（d）（iii）条的范围。

此外，被告还认为香港仲裁庭对涉案仲裁协议不具有专属管辖权，中国内地法院有权对仲裁条款的效力作出决定。被告据此认为其有权在一开始请求中国内地法院宣布仲裁条款无效、未生效或不产生效力。为此，被告出具了关于中国法律的专家意见，证明内地法院有权在裁决作出前在诉讼程序中宣布担保协议中的仲裁条款无效或未生效。法院认为，该专家意见可能在内地法律中有良好依据，但是，根据The Angelic Grace案的适用于香港的原则，香港法院可以且应当签发禁令，以承认和执行原告的初步权利，即行使仲裁协议的消极方面，而无需因必须在内地抵制被告的诉讼而烦恼。（The Defendant has adduced expert evidence on PRC law, to the effect that the Mainland court has jurisdiction to entertain an action for a declaration that the arbitration clause in the Guarantee is void, or did not take effect, before an award is made. That may well depend on domestic Mainland law. However, I agree, that on the principles set out in TheAngelic Grace and applied in Hong Kong, the court in this jurisdiction can and should grant the Injunction, in order to recognize and enforce the Plaintiffs’ prima facie right, to enforce the negative aspect of its arbitration agreement with the Defendant, and not to be vexed by having to resist the Defendant’s proceedings on the Mainland.）

法院指出，外国法院可能坚持其管辖权，但这一事实与仲裁地法院处理受其法律约束的仲裁条款无关。内地法院可能如被告所言具有管辖权，但本案的争议事项是，鉴于存在仲裁协议，被告是否应被允许启动内地法院的管辖权。（The fact that the foreign court may insist on its own jurisdiction is, as held by the English court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v ST-CMS Electric Company Private Ltd [2007] EWHC 1713 (Comm), irrelevant to the court of the seat of the arbitration when it deals with an arbitration provision governed by its own law. The Mainland court may have jurisdiction as claimed by the Defendant, but the issue is whether the Defendant should be allowed, in view of the arbitration agreement, to invoke that jurisdiction.）

被告还表示，其在内地的诉讼已经被受理，其无法中止或撤回该诉讼。法院回应到，根据具体情况，当事人可能确有特殊情况或者有充分理由，使得不履行仲裁协议的初步权利具有正当性。然而，仅凭外国法院不允许中止提起的诉讼程序这一事实并不足以拒绝签发禁令（Whether there are indeed special circumstances, or strong reasons, which may justify a departure from the prima facie entitlement of a party to enforce the arbitration agreement, depends on all the circumstances of the case. However, the mere fact that the foreign court will not grant a stay of the proceedings instituted is not sufficient to refuse an injunction）。

虽然第二原告不是《担保协议》及其仲裁协议的当事人，但如果仲裁协议可以解释为不仅包括对缔约当事人（如第一原告）的申索，而且包括对缔约当事人的非缔约附属或关联公司（如第二原告）的申索，则可以针对第三方提起的相关诉讼授予禁诉令救济（Although the 2nd Plaintiff is not aparty to the Guarantee and arbitration agreement, anti-suit relief may be granted in relation to proceedings commenced against a third party, if the arbitration agreement can be construed to cover claims not only against the contracting party (such as the 1st Plaintiff), but also against the non-contracting affiliates or associates of the contracting party (such as the 2nd Plaintiff)）。在Giorgio Armani SpA v Elan ClothesCo Ltd [2019]2 HKLRD 313案中，该案法院认为，作为理性的商人，纳入仲裁条款的基础合同当事人本希望将与缔约当事人的附属公司之间的争议、申索、分歧或争论提交同一仲裁庭以同样的方式解决（the court explained that as rational businessmen, the parties to the underlying contract embodying the arbitration clause would have wanted the disputes, claims, differences or controversies with affiliates of the contracting parties to be decided by the same forum, in the same manner of dispute resolution）。法院认为，需要审理的一个重大问题是，被告针对第二原告在内地诉讼中与《担保协议》和仲裁协议的存在、有效性和约束力有关的申索应当由同一仲裁庭审理。因此，法院认为可以针对第三方对第二原告提起的诉讼签发禁诉令救济。

综上所述，法院认为其对本案享有管辖权，并认为在对禁诉令申请的延期实质性庭审结束之前批准临时禁令是公正公平的，故准予签发临时禁诉令。

三、评论

本案法院遵循了The AngelicGrace案以及之后的Giorgio ArmaniSpA v Elan Clothes Co Ltd [2019] 2 HKLRD 313案的观点，认为禁诉令属于《仲裁条例》第45条和《高等法院条例》第21L条所指的临时措施，香港法院作为仲裁地监管法院具有管辖权，有权根据《仲裁条例》第45条和《高等法院条例》第21L条签发禁诉令。

法院指出，外国法院可能坚持其管辖权，但这一事实与仲裁地法院处理受其法律约束的仲裁条款无关。因此，即使中国内地法院如被告所言具有管辖权，可以就仲裁协议的存在和效力作出决定，本案法院仍然有权行使管辖权批准禁诉令救济，因为本案的争议事项是，鉴于存在仲裁协议，被告是否应被允许启动内地法院的管辖权。

最后，法院认为，作为理性的商人，纳入仲裁条款的基础合同当事人本希望将与缔约当事人的附属公司之间的争议、申索、分歧或争论提交同一仲裁庭以同样的方式解决。虽然涉案《担保协议》及其仲裁协议的缔约当事人是第一原告和被告，但由于被告根据《担保协议》及其仲裁协议对第一原告的关联公司（即第二原告）提出申索，故法院有权签发针对被告的禁诉令，禁止其对第二原告提起违反仲裁协议的法律程序。