>首页 > 仲裁动态 > 仲裁资讯 > 仲裁要闻 > 正文

高等法院裁定有助于保护仲裁裁决的保密性(英国案例)

更新时间:2017-12-01 16:03:20  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑:lianluobu  点击次数:1283次

高等法院最近裁定,即使裁决已进入公共领域,当事人也不能自由披露仲裁裁决。值得注意的是,这一裁定可能对当事人考虑是否通过仲裁解决争议产生重大影响。

背景: UMS HoldingsLimited v Great Station Properties S.A.案

UMSHoldings Limited(以下简称“UMS”)根据《1996仲裁法》第68条“严重异常行为”向高等法院对仲裁裁决提出了挑战。因为法官在驳回该申请时引用了仲裁裁决中的部分内容,UMS认为该裁决是一份公共文件因此可以任意使用它。被告(GreatStation Properties)反驳了这一说法,并认为双方仍有义务根据《伦敦国际仲裁院规则》 (LCIA规则)第30条规定对该裁决保密,该条款规定:

“除非各方当事人书面明确地另有约定,各方当事人承诺,保密作为一项基本原则,对仲裁中作出的一切裁决以及为了仲裁的目的在仲裁过程中整理的全部材料和另一方当事人在仲裁程序中出示的而非公众人士已知悉的所有其它材料应进行保密,但由于在国家法院或其它司法机关进行真诚的法律程序,保护或追索合法的权利而根据法律责任要求当事人披露者,则属例外。”

Great Station向高等法院请求禁止UMS以除了法庭程序以外的其他目的使用该裁决,或将该裁决披露给任何第三方。作为回应,UMS认为法院不应该为保密性下达命令,因为该裁决是通过参考资料的引用以及在法庭审理和判决时的引证而进入公共领域的——因此第30条的保密义务已失效。

判决

本案Teare法官在其裁定中首先指出,该仲裁裁决无疑已经进入公共领域。Teare法官随后考虑了披露该裁决是否违反了第30条。Teare法官发现第30条豁免情况“在公共领域之外”的措辞意在适用于仲裁裁决,即使对豁免措辞的严格语法解释可能提供另外的说法。因此,由于仲裁裁决已进入公共领域,对仲裁裁决进行保密的合同义务不复存在。

然而,Teare法官则担心UMS存在潜在的任意使用该裁决的可能性—特别是考虑到法院不了解UMS的预期使用目的。Teare法官指出,法院自身的命令意味着裁决已经进入公共领域,因此法院拥有“规范裁定后果的固有管辖权”。《民事诉讼法》第31.22(2)条授权法院限制使用已披露的文件,Teare法官发布命令阻止UMS向任何第三方披露该裁决,但向UMS提供了另一选择途径来提交申请,即解释其对裁决的预期用途。Teare法官表示,这种选择可能会导致成本增加,但是为了防止滥用法院命令而公开审理第68条的申请是必要的。

此外,除了可能已经进入公共领域的裁决之外,Teare 法官并没有提及的仲裁文件的不可披露性,也没有提供任何当事人为何目的能够以及不能够使用仲裁文件(包括裁决文件)的细节。

启示

在随后的司法程序中披露仲裁裁决可能会影响仲裁提供给争议双方的一个关键优势:保密性。Holdings Limited v Great Station Properties S.A.案向当事人提供一定程度的安慰,即在裁决之后不太可能影响保密性。Teare法官指出,如果当事人希望取消该裁决的保密限制,则应该向法院明确解释其打算如何使用该裁决。

 [英文版]


High Court Ruling Helps Protect Confidentiality of Arbitral Awards

 

By: Latham & Watkins LLP - Daniel Harrison

The High Court recently held that a party was not free to disclose an arbitral award even though that award had already entered the public domain. Notably, the ruling may have significant implications for parties considering whether or not to resolve disputes through arbitration.

Background: UMS Holdings Limited v Great Station Properties S.A.

UMS Holdings Limited challenged an arbitral award on the ground of serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 before the High Court. Because the judge had quoted parts of the arbitral award in the judgment refusing the application, UMS claimed that the award was a public document and that UMS could therefore use the award as it wished. The defendant, Great Station Properties, rejected this position and argued that the parties were still bound to keep the award confidential pursuant to Article 30 of the London Court of International Arbitration Rules (LCIA Rules), which provides:

The parties undertake as a general principle to keep confidential all awards in the arbitration, together with all materials in the arbitration created for the purpose of the arbitration and all other documents produced by another party in the proceedings not otherwise in the public domain, save and to the extent that disclosure may be required of a party by legal duty, to protect or pursue a legal right, or to enforce or challenge an award in legal proceedings before a state court or other legal authority.

Great Station applied to the High Court for an order preventing UMS from using the award for any purpose other than the court proceedings or from disclosing the award to any third parties. In response, UMS claimed that the court should not issue anorder for confidentiality because the award had entered the public domain by virtue of references, as well as quotation at the hearing and in the judgment in the court proceedings —thereby nullifying Article 30’s confidentiality obligations.

Judgment

The judge in this case, Teare J, first noted in his ruling that the award had undoubtedly entered the public domain. Teare J then considered whether the disclosure of the award would breach Article 30. Teare J found that the Article 30 exemption “not otherwise in the public domain” intended to apply to an award, even if the strict grammatical interpretation of the exemption may have provided otherwise. Therefore, since the award was in the public domain, the contractual obligation to keep the award confidential no longer existed.

However, Teare J raised concerns about UMS’ ability potentially to use the award as it wished— particularly given that the court did not know UMS’ intended use. Teare J noted that the court’s own order meant that the award had entered the public domain and therefore the court had an “inherent jurisdiction to regulate the consequences of its decision.” Referring to CPR 31.22(2), which empowers the court to restrict the use of disclosed documents, Teare J granted the order preventing UMS from disclosing the award to any third party, but provided UMS the option to submit another application explaining its intended use of the award. Teare J stated that this option would likely cause increased costs, but was necessary in order to prevent abuse of the court’s order that the section 68 application be heard in public.

Further, Teare J did not address the non-disclosure of arbitral documents other than the award that may have entered the public domain, nor did Teare J provide any details on for what purposes a party can and cannot use arbitral documents, including the award document.

Implications

The disclosure of an arbitral award in subsequent court proceedings risks undermining one of the key advantages that arbitration offers to disputing parties:confidentiality. UMS Holdings Limited v Great Station Properties S.A. providesa degree of comfort to parties that the loss of confidentiality is unlikely post-award. As Teare J noted, a party should explain to the court exactly how it intends to use an award if it wishes to remove the award’s confidentiality restrictions.