2020年6月1日，在Punch Partnerships (PTL) Ltd & Anor v Jonalt Ltd [2020] EWHC 1376 (Ch)一案中，法院认定仲裁员未听取当事人呈请而采用举证责任倒置的证明规则且对裁决结果产生实质性影响，又对于当事人之间的租约条款作出修订的裁决超越仲裁员职权范围，认可原告对本案仲裁裁决的异议。
一、背景介绍
原告一与原告二为同属一家母公司的全资子公司，原告一是本案公共房屋的出租人，原告二是公共场所房地产业务经营者，被告是承租人。根据《2015年小型企业和雇佣法》（the Small Business,Enterprise and Employment Act 2015）第4部分和《2016年公共场所典章和规章》（the Pubs Code etc Regulations 2016），承租人提起法定仲裁，由公共场所典章审裁员（Pubs Code Adjudicator，“PCA"）指定独任仲裁员审理。
本案的关键问题是，原告二在仅按市场租金租赁（market rent only，”MRO“）的租房合同中要求承租人确保其储藏的饮料至少有60%来自原告二的关联公司这一条款是否合理。仲裁员认定这一要求不合理，并令原告二提供一个包含20%饮料供应要求的MRO租约。原告认为由原告二证明该条款的合理性是举证责任倒置，并非由当事人提出，且仲裁员无权令原告二提供一个包含20%饮料供应要求的MRO。
二、法院认定
法院认定本案应适用如下法律：
《1996年仲裁法》第68（2）条：
严重违规是指法院认为已经或将对申请人造成实质性不公正的下列一种或多种违规行为（Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant ）——
（a）仲裁庭没有遵从第33条（仲裁庭的一般职责）；（failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33 (general duty of tribunal)）
（b）仲裁庭超越职权（除超出其实质管辖权外：见第67条）；（the tribunal exceeding its powers (otherwise than by exceeding its substantive jurisdiction: see section 67)）
《1996年仲裁法》第33条：
（1）仲裁庭应——The tribunal shall–
（a）在双方之间公平公正地行事，给每方一个合理的机会陈述自己的观点并处理对方的观点，及（act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent, and）
（b）采取与本案情况相适应的程序，避免不必要的延误和费用，为解决待决事项提供公平的手段。（ adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the particular case, avoiding unnecessary delay or expense, so as to provide a fair means for the resolution of the matters falling to be determined.）
1. 法院对该仲裁裁决异议有管辖权
对于仲裁员未能就60%库存要求不合理的认定提供理由，原告表示反对但未在听证会上作出表示。鉴于仲裁员在其2019年6月20日的程序令中多次援引《CIArb规则》第34（2）条以放弃上诉权，法院应首先就本法院的管辖权发表意见。
法院认为，原告对仲裁裁决的异议是根据《1996年仲裁法》第68条提出的，又根据该法第4（1）条，附件1所列的该法第一部分的强制性规定，“尽管有相反协议仍然有效”，第68条是附表1所列条文之一。因此，尽管有《CIArb规则》第34（2）条的规定，仍可根据第68条提出正当异议。Highwayman Hotel案支持了这一观点。（The Claimants' challenges are advanced under s. 68 of the 1996 Act. S. 4(1) of that Act provides that the mandatory provisions of Part I of the Act, as listed in Schedule 1 to the Act, "have effect notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary". S. 68 is one of the provisions listed in Schedule 1. It follows that a challenge may properly be brought under s. 68 notwithstanding the provisions of Article 34(2) of the CIArb Rules. I note that this was also the position taken in the Highwayman Hotel judgment at §35.）
2. 仲裁员就举证责任倒置未听取当事人呈请属于严重违规
法院认为，根据Flaux J In Pimera Maritime（Hellas）v Sunghai Eastern Heavy Industry[2013]EWHC 3066（Comm）案，法院应以合理和商业的方式对裁决进行解读，而不是挑剔并寻找不一致和错误（the cases have emphasised that the court should read an award in a reasonable and commercial way and not by nitpicking and looking for inconsistencies and faults）。法院认为，仲裁员给出的理由必须被视为是基于一种假设，即原告二应证明60%库存要求的合理性，而仲裁员对此提供的唯一证据就是各方都未能提供证据支持或推翻这一要求的合理性。仲裁员只能得出结论，如果他认为证明责任在于原告二，则该要求的合理性并未得到证明。（the reasons given by the arbitrator must be taken as turning upon an assumption that it was for Star to prove the reasonableness of the 60% keg stocking requirement. The sole reason given by the arbitrator for that finding was that there was no evidence on either side to support or rebut the reasonableness of that requirement. The further comments made in the Procedural Order also stated that Star had not provided any specific evidence or submissions to support the 60% requirement.Those comments could only have led the arbitrator to conclude that the requirement proposed by Star was unreasonable if he had concluded that the burden of proof was on Star to establish the reasonableness of the requirement, rather than on the tenant to establish that it was unreasonable.）
法院认为，“谁主张谁举证”的一般规则适用本案。在本案中，承租人主张60%储藏要求不合理，违反了《2016年公共场所典章和规章》第29条和《2015年小型企业和雇佣法》第43（4）（a）（iii）条。根据举证责任的一般规则，承租人有责任对其所称的违约行为进行证明。前述法定框架中没有任何举证责任倒置的情形，如果仲裁员认为举证责任应当倒置，应听取各方当事人呈请和意见。（In principle, therefore, on the normal rules of the burden of proof, the onus lay on the tenant to establish the breach alleged. Nothing in the statutory framework set out in the 2015 Act and the Pubs Code suggests a reversal of that burden of proof. In those circumstances if the arbitrator considered that the burden of proof should be reversed, that should have been raised with the parties for their comment.）
仲裁员认为应当由原告二证明该库存要求的合理性，由承租人确定该要求是不合理的，但在仲裁程序进行期间并未指示当事人呈请。虽然仲裁员在程序令中指出，双方原本有机会在听证会上提出进一步意见，但这并不能解决举证责任问题。原告二对承租人关于不合理的争论作出了全面的回应，而承租人明示拒绝作出任何答复；双方没有明确要求提交任何证据。仲裁庭表示，除非双方另有要求，仲裁将在没有口头听证的情况下进行书面审理。由于任何一方当事人都没有要求进行口头听证，仲裁员依法根据举证责任的一般规则作出裁决，除非仲裁员在根据双方呈请认为在本案中应适用不同的规则。仲裁员未能就这一争点指令双方呈请，因而未能遵守《1996年仲裁法》第33条，因此根据该法第68（2）（a）条，属于严重违规行为。（While the arbitrator's comments in the Procedural Order of 20 June 2019 note that the parties were given the opportunity to provide further submissions at a hearing, which they did not take up, that does not resolve the burden of proof issue. Star had set out, in the Scott Schedule, a full response to the tenant's contentions on unreasonableness. The tenant had expressly declined to make any further submissions in reply; the parties had not been specifically directed to file any evidence; and the PCA's directions expressly stated that the arbitration would reach a decision on the papers and without an oral hearing unless the parties requested otherwise. Since neither party requested an oral hearing, the arbitrator was required to determine the matter on the submissions before him, on the basis of the normal rules of the burden of proof unless he considered – following submissions from the parties – that a different rule should apply in this case. By failing to invite submissions on that point the arbitrator failed to comply with s. 33 of the 1996 Act; there was therefore a serious irregularity under s. 68(2)(a) of that Act.）
根据《1996年仲裁法》第20.8条和ZCCM Investments Holdings v Kansanshi Holdings [2019] 2 Lloyd's Rep 29案，如果能够证明程序违规是导致仲裁员作出该裁决的原因，而如果违规行为影响了当前结论的作出，则实质性不公正存在。（The accepted testnow seems to be that there is substantial injustice if it can be shown that their regularity in the procedure cause the arbitrators to reach a conclusion which, but for the irregularity, they might not have reached, as long as the alternative was reasonably arguable.）
法院认为该规则适用本案。鉴于仲裁员认为承租人没有提供任何证据（事实或专家证据）来反驳60%的库存要求，承租人的主张将不会得到认可。法院支持原告的反对意见，即仲裁员在举证责任问题上没有遵守《1996年仲裁法》第33条，根据该法第68条存在严重违规行为。（I consider that this test is undoubtedly met in the present case. Had the arbitrator indicated that he was considering departing from the usual rule as to the burden of proof, and had he invited submissions on this point, he might well have been persuaded by Star to apply the usual rule. In that case, given the arbitrator's finding that the tenant had provided no evidence (factual or expert) to rebut the 60% keg stocking requirement, it is at the very least strongly arguable that the tenant's allegation of unreasonableness would have failed. I therefore find in favour of the Claimants in relation to their objection that the arbitrator failed to comply with s. 33 of the 1996 Act in respect of the burden of proof issue, giving rise to a serious irregularity under s. 68 of the 1996 Act.）
3. 裁决超出仲裁员职权范围
根据Highwayman Hotel案，争议裁决中当事人被要求重设MRO租期，比原先的租约延长了至少长两年。而《2016年公共场所典章和规章》和《2015年小型企业和雇佣法》均未明确规定允许仲裁员通过要求当事人修订具体条款来干预承租人和公共房地产经营者之间的商业谈判。一般性许可的措辞不足以授权仲裁员干预双方的经济和财产利益的权利，除非明确表达并适用于该目的。
法院认为，本案仲裁员的指令将租约中的库存要求修改为20%，超出了仲裁员职权范围。因此，根据《1996年仲裁法》第68（2）（b）条属于严重违规行为。鉴于前述对实质性不公正的认定，基于对仲裁员职权的正确解读，这一要求不应被列入裁决。（For the same reasons the arbitrator's order in the present case that Star should offer a lease with a 20% keg stocking requirement exercised a power that the arbitrator did not have. That part of the order was therefore a serious irregularity under s.68 (2)(b) of the 1996 Act. The test of substantial injustice is clearly met, since on a correct reading of the arbitrator's powers that requirement could not have been included in the award.）
4. 结论
由于仲裁员作出该部分裁决已超出其职权，法院直接撤销仲裁裁决中关于拟议MRO中20%库存要求的规定，而不应将这一问题交仲裁员重新审理。对于举证责任问题，应交给仲裁员重新审理。
三、评论
本案中涉及仲裁的主要问题在于仲裁员对于当事双方举证责任的认定以及裁决对于MRO条款的修订是否超出仲裁员的职权范围。根据如果仲裁员认为举证责任应当倒置，应听取各方当事人呈请。本案中仲裁员并未指示当事人就此提出呈请，该裁决是在违规程序的影响下作出的。而本案依据的法律未明确允许仲裁员通过要求当事人修订具体条款来干预承租人和公共房地产经营者之间的商业谈判。一般性许可的措辞不足以授权仲裁员干预双方的经济和财产利益的权利。
对比本案判决作出依据的核心判例Highwayman Hotel案，法院在该案中认定，仲裁员要求修订后的要约至少包含5年租约的裁决是帮助当事人补写合同的行为，属于严重的违规行为。与本案仲裁员修订合同的库存条款由“60%”改为“20%”，法院援引判例将之理解为仲裁员对当事人之间“商业行为”的干预，为仲裁员超出其职权提供了判例法依据。