伦敦国际仲裁院更新仲裁秘书使用指引

更新时间：2017-11-17 10:35:50   张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1579次

仲裁庭秘书在仲裁中的职能是一个引发诸多不同观点（通常以强烈的措辞表达）的重要问题。2017年10月26日，伦敦国际仲裁院（LCIA）发布了最新的仲裁员手册（以下简称“《手册》”）。更新的部分（包含在《手册》第8条）希望细化并阐明LCIA对仲裁庭秘书的职能和使用所采用的方法。特别值得注意的是，LCIA加强了许可要求，要求当事人对仲裁庭秘书获准的职责、报酬和身份明确表示同意。

在引入有关仲裁庭秘书的变化时，LCIA强调了交流和合意这两个关键主题。

更新的内容可概括分类为以下几点：

一、职能和责任

《手册》第8.1条确认，根据所适用的任何法律和当事人合意，仲裁庭可以寻求仲裁庭秘书的帮助。然而，该《手册》在第68段中明确表示“任何情况下仲裁庭都不能将其根本的裁决职能委托给他人”。第69段还强调，仲裁庭秘书的协助并不能解除任何仲裁员履行其职责的个人责任。

第70段明确规定，在获得当事人同意之前，仲裁庭应确保仲裁庭秘书不会提供任何帮助。仲裁秘书一旦被委任，也只能执行已获得当事人批准的职责。  

对于仲裁庭提议应由仲裁秘书执行的任务，该仲裁庭必须始终确保当事人能得到通知。《手册》的早期版本所列举的仲裁秘书能够从事的活动是有限的。这次更新虽然没有规定任何适合于仲裁秘书的特定任务，但LCIA在第8.2条规定了一系列仲裁庭在讨论和协商开始时“可能会提出的”任务。其中包括行政管理任务（例如代表仲裁庭交流，组织文档，校正并组织程序事项），参加审理和会议以及一些实质性任务（例如概括意见书和准备初稿），前提是仲裁庭始终保证遵守《手册》第69和70段（如上总结）。关于仲裁秘书职能的任何变化（如委派额外工作或者更改报酬）都必须得到当事人的同意。

二、报酬

如果仲裁庭拟通过当事人交给LCIA的保证金支付仲裁秘书的费用，仲裁庭必须向当事人提供收费标准，且所有人都必须明确表示同意。在第72段，LCIA建议在这种情况下，小时费在50-150美金是合理的。

三、任命

一旦当事人同意了仲裁秘书的工作和费率（如果适用），新《手册》确认LCIA将提供一份《独立和同意任命申明》交由被提议的仲裁秘书完成。该申明将由仲裁庭发送给当事人，使各方当事人均有机会基于披露的信息对提议的选择进行评价或表示异议。第78段还阐明，仲裁秘书负有持续披露的义务。

四、批准

第8.3条规定了一个新的审批程序，用以确认当事人对仲裁秘书的任命。以前，为使仲裁秘书能够获得批准，当事人必须提交书面许可。仲裁庭现在则需要为被提议秘书的批准设定合理期限，若当事人在期满之前未作出答复则被视为已同意该秘书的任命。

与第74段中包含的事项一样，仲裁秘书的任命之后也应当由仲裁庭进行记录，最好是以程序令的方式（第77段）。

如果任何一方对被提议的人员表示异议，仲裁庭必须提议另外的人选（第75段）。《手册》未要求异议必须合理或须基于《独立和同意任命申明》中包含的信息，也未对支撑理由作任何要求：当事人实际上拥有绝对的否决权。

五、免职

《手册》还确认，仲裁庭可以行使自由裁量权罢免仲裁秘书，并且《LCIA规则》第10条（关于仲裁员异议）在经过适当修正后对仲裁秘书也同样适用。

当一个仲裁秘书被免职后，仲裁庭可对其进行更换，前提是仲裁庭通知LCIA：一份新《独立和同意任命申明》已提供给当事人，且当事人已获得了向新提议的候选人提出异议的机会。

如果替换后的仲裁秘书就其工作收取费用，收费范围通常不应包括先前的仲裁秘书已完成的工作。尚不清楚这是指重复工作还是所有工作。

六、评论

仲裁秘书的使用，特别是委派给秘书的工作的性质，多年来一直是仲裁界争议的问题。引人注目的案件如尤科斯（Yukos）仲裁，其中俄方认为仲裁庭不适当地将其职责委派给仲裁秘书，这引起了关于仲裁秘书可能未经许可实际上担任“第四仲裁员”的担忧。

仲裁机构和仲裁员同样在仲裁秘书问题上因为缺乏透明度而受到批评，特别是在当事人不知晓的情况下秘密地获得秘书的帮助并向其委派任务。这促使一些机构发布了相关指导性文件。一些仲裁机构，包括ICC、HKIAC、SIAC分别在2012年、2014年、2015年更新了有关仲裁秘书使用的指引，有些机构还设置了仲裁秘书培训项目。行业机构例如Young ICCA和IBA也都发布了指导说明。LCIA现在也紧随其后，进一步修订并阐明其在仲裁秘书的委任和使用上所采用的方法。

LCIA的方法和许多其他机构使用的方法相似。《手册》明确禁止仲裁员委派其根本的裁决职能，同样还规定了仲裁员始终负责且必须充分监督由仲裁秘书执行的工作。最终，控制权在当事人手中——若仲裁庭提议将更多的实质性工作委派给秘书而当事人对该提议表示反对，则仲裁庭必须遵守当事人的决定。

在许多案件中，仲裁庭秘书的参与符合当事人的利益，这确保了仲裁庭耗时全部用于实体问题的决策，而不是用在管理或者行政工作上。这类任务的委派向当事人收取的费用非常低廉，甚至更多时候根本不收取任何费用。这种做法能够节省当事人的仲裁花费，也可能加快仲裁庭作出命令或者裁决的速度。

随着施加给仲裁机构和仲裁员的压力（有关仲裁费用和时间效率的压力）不断增加，LCIA对于仲裁秘书的职能和使用所做的规定取得了明智的平衡，使得当事人在知情的情况下能够对效率和节约成本，与“过度委派”之间的界限作出选择。在所有情况下，透明度都是关键的方面。

【英文版】

The LCIA updates its guidance on the use of Tribunal Secretaries

The role of tribunal secretaries in arbitration is an important subject which generates a range of different views, often expressed in strong terms. On 26 October 2017 the LCIA published its updated Notes for Arbitrators (the Notes). The update (contained within section 8 of the Notes) seeks to provide more detail and clarity on the LCIA’s approach to the role and use of tribunal secretaries. Of particular note is the LCIA’s strengthening of consent requirements, requiring the parties to specifically consent to the permissible tasks, remuneration and identity of a tribunal secretary.

In introducing the changes regarding tribunal secretaries, the LCIA has emphasised the two key themes of communication and consent.

The updates can broadly be categorised as follows:

Role and Duties:

Section 8.1 of the Notes confirms that, subject to any applicable law and the parties’ consent, an arbitral tribunal may obtain assistance from a tribunal secretary. However, the Notes expressly state at paragraph 68 that “in no circumstances may an arbitral tribunal delegate its fundamental decision-making function“.Paragraph 69 also stresses that a tribunal secretary’s assistance does not relieve any arbitrator of their personal responsibility to perform his or her tasks.

In paragraph 70 the onus is clearly placed upon the tribunal to ensure that a tribunal secretary does not provide any assistance before party approval has been obtained and, once appointed, that the tribunal secretary only carries out tasks which have been approved by the parties.

The tribunal must always ensure that it informs the parties of the tasks which it proposes should be performed by the tribunal secretary. In its earlier iteration, the Notes setout a limited list of activities which the tribunal secretary might undertake.In its update, although without stipulating any particular task as appropriate for a tribunal secretary, at section 8.2 the LCIA provides a list of tasks which the tribunal “may wish to propose” as a starting point for discussion and negotiation. These include administrative tasks (such as communicating on behalf of the tribunal, organising documents, proof reading and organising procedural matters), attending hearings and meetings and some substantive tasks (such as summarising submissions and preparing first drafts), provided the tribunal always ensures compliance with paragraphs 69 and 70 of the Notes –which are summarised above.

Any variation to the role of the tribunal secretary, such as delegating additional tasks or changing the remuneration paid, must be agreed by the parties.

Remuneration:

If the tribunal intends for the parties to meet the cost of the tribunal secretary through the deposits they lodge with the LCIA, the tribunal must propose a fee rate to the parties,to which all must provide their express consent. In paragraph 72 the LCIA suggests that an hourly rate of £50-£150 is appropriate in the circumstances.

Appointment:

Once the tasks and rate (if applicable) of the tribunal secretary have been agreed by the parties, the new Notes confirm that the LCIA will provide the proposed tribunal secretary with a Statement of Independence and Consent to Appointment to be completed. These will then be sent by the arbitral tribunal to the parties, giving all parties the opportunity to comment on or oppose the proposed choice on the basis of the information disclosed. Paragraph 78 also clarifies that the tribunal secretary has an ongoing disclosure obligation.

Approval:

Section 8.3 sets out a new deemed approval process for confirming the appointment of a tribunal secretary by the parties. Previously, the parties’ written approval was required in order that a tribunal secretary could be approved. The tribunal is now required to set a reasonable time limit for the approval of its proposed secretary, at the end of which the parties are deemed to have approved..

The appointment of the tribunal secretary, together with the matters contained in paragraph 74, should then be recorded by the tribunal, preferably in a procedural order (paragraph77).

If any party objects to the person proposed, the tribunal must instead propose another individual(paragraph 75). There is no requirement that the objection be reasonable or based upon the information contained within the secretary’s Statement of Independence or Consent to Appointment, nor that it need be supported by reasons: the parties effectively have an absolute right of veto.

Removal:

The Notes confirm that a tribunal secretary may be removed by the tribunal at its discretion, but also that Article 10 of the LCIA Rules (relating to arbitrator challenges) applies, mutatis mutandis, to tribunal secretaries.

Where a tribunal secretary is removed, the tribunal can replace that tribunal secretary, provided they inform the LCIA, that a new Statement of Independence and Consent to Appointment is provided to the parties, and that the parties are given an opportunity to object to the proposed new candidate.

If the replacement tribunal secretary charges fees in respect of their work, fees should not generally becharged for work already performed by a previous tribunal secretary. It is not clear whether this refers to just duplicate work or all work.

Comment

The use of a tribunal secretary – and, in particular, the nature of the tasks delegated to such an individual – has been a matter of debate within the arbitral community for many years. High-profile cases such as the Yukos arbitration, in which Russia argued that the tribunal had improperly delegated its duties to the tribunal secretary, have drawn attention to the concern that a tribunal secretary may impermissibly act as a de facto ‘fourth arbitrator’.

Institutions and arbitrators alike have faced criticism over a perceived lack of transparency when it comes to the use of secretaries, particularly for the undisclosed use of assistance and delegation to secretaries without the parties’ knowledge. This has prompted the emergence of guidance from a number of sources. A number of arbitral institutions, including the ICC in 2012, HKIAC in 2014 and SIAC in 2015, have updated their guidance on the use of tribunal secretaries and some have instituted tribunal secretary training programmes. Industry bodies such as Young ICCA and the IBA have also issued guidance. The LCIA has now followed suit in further codifying and clarifying its approach to the appointment and use of such assistance.

The LCIA’s approach is similar to that taken by many of the other institutions. The Notes make more explicit the prohibition on arbitrators delegating fundamental decision-making functions, as well as the fact that arbitrators remain responsible for, and must adequately supervise, tasks carried out by their tribunal secretaries.Ultimately, the control rests with the parties – and, should the tribunal propose the delegation of more substantive tasks and the parties reject that suggestion, to the tribunal must abide by that decision.

In many cases, the engagement of a tribunal secretary may serve the interests of the parties by ensuring that the tribunal’s time is spent solely on substantive decision-making, rather than on essentially administrative or clerical matters. The delegation of such tasks, either at a very substantially cheaper cost to the parties or more commonly at no cost to them at all, will save the parties’ money. It may also expedite the production of the tribunal’s orders and awards.

With ever-increasing pressure placed upon institutions and arbitrators to drive cost and time efficiency, the LCIA’s approach to the role and use of a tribunal secretary strikes a sensible balance, enabling the parties to make informed choices as to where the line is drawn between efficiency and cost-saving on the one-hand, and “over-delegation” on the other. In all circumstances, transparency is key.