2020年1月16日，在Trans-Oil International SA v Savoy Trading LP [2020] EWHC 57 (Comm)一案中，英格兰及威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法庭裁定，域外送达仅适用于仲裁协议的当事人（有限合伙），法院不得对仲裁协议的非当事人（有限合伙的合伙人）作出命令，并且不得《民事诉讼规则》第81.4条中的规定的针对公司的董事或其他高级管理人员作出拘束令的权力延伸适用于有限合伙的合伙人。

一、背景介绍

申请人Trans-Oil提出单边申请（without notice）以修改针对第一被申请人Savoy Trading的全球冻结令，以将第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov添加到该全球冻结令中，或将其列入惩罚通知中，并允许对其进行域外送达。

第一被申请人Savoy Trading是一家苏格兰有限合伙企业，其两个合伙人都是公司法人。第一被申请人已签约将小麦出售给申请人，但却通知申请人其无法履行合同。申请人根据合同中的仲裁协议送达了仲裁通知。根据仲裁裁决，第一被申请人Savoy Trading的财产被封存，并对此任命了受托人。申请人Trans-Oil获取了全球冻结令和资产披露令。第一被申请人Savoy Trading的合伙人之一是第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov的信托受托人，该合伙人公司以公司自身名义为第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov在Savoy Trading中代持权益。第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov作出了一份宣誓证明书，主张其不接受管辖权，没有迹象表明第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov在管辖范围英格兰和威尔士境内有任何存在或资产。

申请人主张第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov对于该合同负有个人责任，理由是该合同是由申请人和第一被申请人订立，由Ivan Melnykov在有第一被申请人的委托书的情况下签署；而根据苏格兰法，未经受托人许可，第一被申请人Savoy Trading不能订立需要信用的合同，因此，由于不存在此类许可，第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov订立了其无权订立的合同，因此，由于代理人在其代理范围之外订立合同，所以该代理人应对合同承担个人责任。

申请人还主张本案法院拥有《民事诉讼规则》第6.36条所规定的管辖权，因为该合同的准据法是英格兰法，因此属于《民事诉讼规则》PD 6B第3.1（6）（c）条的适用范围内。而根据1996《仲裁法》第44条法院为支持仲裁而行使的权力（Court powers exercisable in support of arbitral proceedings），法院可对仲裁协议的第三方下达命令，并且法院可以根据《民事诉讼规则》第62.5条的规定批准将仲裁请求书进行域外送达；第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov是第一被申请人Savoy Trading的事实上的合伙人，《民事诉讼规则》第81.4条中关于对公司的董事或其他高级管理人员作出拘束令（committal order）的权力应扩展到合伙人。

《民事诉讼规则》81.4规定：

（1）如某人——

（a）被判决或命令要求而采取作为，但并未在判决或命令所规定的时间内作出；或

（b）不服从判决或命令而无作为，

然后，根据《债务人法》第18692条和第18783条以及本《规则》的规定，可以通过拘束令来执行判决或命令。

（2）……

（3）如第（1）款所提述的人是公司或其他法人团体，则可向该公司或法人团体的任何董事或其他高级人员作出拘束令。

CPR 81.4:

(1) If a person -

(a) required by a judgment or order to do an act does not do it within the time fixed by the judgment or order; or

(b) disobeys a judgment or order not to do an act,

then, subject to the Debtors Acts 18692 and 18783 and to the provisions of these Rules, the judgment or order may be enforced by an order for committal.

(2) …

(3) If the person referred to in paragraph (1) is a company or other corporation, the committal order may be made against any director or other officer of that company or corporation.

二、法院认定

法院驳回了该申请。

在送达方面，法院认为，对于《民事诉讼规则》第6.36条规定的管辖权，若某人不是协议当事人，则申请人不得对该人以该等仲裁通知进行域外送达。法院必须满足存在有充分的证据以证明第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov是协议的当事人，或者第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov可能负有个人责任时才得作出该命令。没有证据表明第一被申请人Savoy Trading未经受托人许可即获得信贷，而即便其获得信贷，也不太可能会导致需要揭开公司面纱以使得第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov为此承担个人责任。（Counsel accepted in the course of the hearing that there was no evidence that this particular contract involved obtaining credit and there was therefore no evidence before the court to support the submission that any such offence had been committed. Even if the contract in question arguably involved the obtaining of credit, and thus the permission of the Trustee was required for this contract, the opinion of the Scottish Advocate (exhibited to the 4th affidavit of Ms Nash) to which the court was directed in the course of the hearing, did not in my view establish the proposition that personal liability would attach to Mr Melynkov in the circumstances. To the contrary the opinion states (paragraph 4(2)) that prima facie the offence would be committed by the limited partnership (Savoy Trading) and even if committed by the general partner (Cadwell), this would not render Mr Melnykov personally liable unless the court were to pierce the corporate veil which the Advocate notes in the circumstances was unlikely on the facts known to him.）。

此外，不存在任何迹象表明第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov以隐名代理的代理人身份缔结协议而导致其将承担个人责任，理由是该合同是由申请人和第一被申请人订立，由第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov在具有第一被申请人的委托书的情况下签署，而委任状和授权书都不证明第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov以隐名代理的代理人身份缔结协议（I concur with the conclusion that there is nothing to suggest that Mr Melnykov contracted as agent for an undisclosed principal. The contract with the applicant was entered into by Savoy Trading. The fact that the contract was signed by Mr Melnykov and that he had a power of attorney for Savoy Trading, does not in my view bring this case within the principle relied upon by the applicant. The Nominee Declaration and the power of attorney do not amount to evidence of a good arguable case that he was contracting as an agent for an undisclosed principal.）。

在冻结令方面，法院认为，依照Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Limited[2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm)案和DTEK Trading SA v Morozov [2014] EWHC 94案，《民事诉讼规则》第62.5条规定的管辖权仅针对仲裁协议的当事人而言。（In Cruz City, Males J held that service out pursuant to CPR 62.5(1)(c) is permissible only against a party to the arbitration agreement.）允许根据《民事诉讼规则》第62.5（1）（c）条的规定而对1996《仲裁法》第44条所述的主张有关的域外送达仅得针对仲裁协议当事人进行，而第44条并不允许法院针对仲裁协议的非当事人下达命令，申请人Trans-Oil对此没有提出站得住脚的主张以支持法院有权对第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov作出冻结令（Whilst noting the submission for the applicant that the judge in DTEK said that there was "an argument as to this issue", 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 why they were not persuasive and/or correct.）。法院认为，在第二被申请人不是协议当事人的情况下，且没有很好的理由支持其应对违约承担责任的情况下，法院不具有《民事诉讼规则》PD 6B第3.1.6（c）条规定的管辖权（In my view, in order for the court to have jurisdiction under CPR 6.36, it is not enough for the applicant to serve a purported notice of arbitration on a person in circumstances where he is not a party to the contract containing the arbitration agreement. The court must be satisfied that there is a good arguable case that Mr Melnykov is a party to the contract (or possibly personally liable in respect thereof) and in my view the applicant has not shown a good arguable case that Mr Melnykov is a party to the contract, or personally liable on the contract, such as to give the court jurisdiction pursuant to the gateway in PD6B 3.1.6 (c).）。

对于是否应授予冻结令，第一被申请人Savoy Trading人已取消合同，涉嫌违约，因此有充分的理由对其使用冻结令（On the evidence it seems to this court that Savoy Trading clearly repudiated and/or renounced the contract by its emails and thus there is a good arguable case for breach of contract. However the court also has to determine whether it is just and convenient and in particular whether the applicant has shown a real risk of dissipation by the respondent of his assets.）。然而，关于第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov的资产和实际流失风险的证据并不充分，而虽然可以从该等证据中进行推理，然是也必须有足够的证据来确保性质严重的冻结令的授予的命令。即便法院拥有管辖权，其也将不会行使其裁量权对第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov作出冻结令（The evidence in this matter as to the assets of Mr Melnykov and a real risk of dissipation by Mr Melnykov is in my view weak. (The position in relation to Savoy Trading was different as to assets and the risk of dissipation and does not mean that there is a good arguable case in relation to Mr Melnykov). Whilst the court accepts that evidence in these cases may of necessity be drawn by way of inference, there must be enough evidence to warrant the grant of what is a draconian order freezing the assets of a person and had it been necessary to decide the issue, in my view the court would not have exercised its discretion to grant the order against Mr Melynkov.）。

在惩罚通知方面，法院认为并不存在将《民事诉讼规则》第81.4（3）条扩展适用于法律上的合伙人或事实上的合伙人的依据（It seems to me that there is no basis for firstly, extending the rule in CPR 81.4(3) to partners and secondly, extending the rule to de facto partners. The authorities as to what constitutes a de facto director have no application to partners unless one first establishes that the rule in CPR81.4(3) extends to partners.）。

三、评论

本案中，虽然有限合伙的概念很接近公司，并且需要在公司注册处（Companies House）注册，但即便如此法院在行使1996《仲裁法》第44条规定的法院为支持仲裁而行使的权力时，不对仲裁协议的非当事人作出命令，而且拒绝将《民事诉讼规则》第81.4条中的规定的针对公司的董事或其他高级管理人员作出拘束令的权力延伸适用于作为合同缔约方的有限合伙的合伙人，更何况第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov的利益只是被有限合伙合伙人代持。这在一定程度上反映了英格兰法院对将送达措施和保全措施适用于位于境外的非合同缔约方的第三方上的谨慎态度。

然而，本案中第二被申请人Ivan Melnykov本身可能是第一被申请人Savoy Trading的实际控制人，而若本案中的有限合伙并非设立于苏格兰而是设立于英格兰与威尔士，则法院是否会揭开公司面纱而认定本案申请的措施适用于被申请人，这也值得我们进一步研究。