第一媒体（First Media）经过最后努力，推翻了香港法院此前作出的对其强制执行的5份仲裁裁决书的判决。

在2018年4月11日的法院判决中，香港终审法院最终（CFA）一致同意First Media的上诉，撤销了法院的如下裁定，并延长了第一传媒申请执行宽限期（apply for leave to set aside），以撤销准予Astro执行香港仲裁裁决的裁定。

该案主要问题是：仲裁庭没有管辖权，尽管没有申请撤销仲裁裁决，但是必须说服作为执行法院的一审法院，接受管辖权异议抗辩，并撤销强制执行令。

判决请见：AstroNusantara International B.V. and Others v. PT FirstMedia TBK [2018] HKCFA 12; FACV 14/2017 (11 April 2018)

First Media对新加坡仲裁庭的管辖权提出异议，理由是Astro旗下的企业（追加的当事人）不当地参与了仲裁。First Media选择了参加仲裁，并没有申请新加坡法院撤销仲裁庭的管辖权裁决。仲裁庭最终作出了有利于Astro裁决后，First Media依据管辖权异议在新加坡法院提起强制执行异议，并在新加坡上诉法院最终胜诉，上诉法院认为其有权在“主动”撤销救济（“active” remedyof set aside）和“被动”不予执行救济（“passive” remedy of resisting enforcement）之间作出选择。

在新加坡无法执行裁决后，Astro在香港启动了执行程序。First Media起初并未提出执行异议，认为其在香港没有可供执行的财产。当发现错误并申请撤销执行令时，已经超出法律规定的时限（超过了14个月）。尽管同意First Media并没有恶意选择行使被动救济而不是主动救济，但是，香港上诉法院（Hong Kong Court of Appeal）还是驳回了其申请，上诉法院认为First Media提出申请撤销裁决的时间已经超过香港法院强制执行异议的期限，并拒绝行使延长期限的自由裁量权。法院在作出决定时，依据了三个因素：

1.   迟延的时间（length of thedelay）；

2.   蓄意决定不在规定期限内申请撤销执行令的事实（The fact that a deliberate decision was taken not to apply to set aside the enforcement orders within the prescribed time limit）；以及

3.   裁决未在仲裁地被撤销的事实（fact that the awards had not been set aside at the seat of the arbitration）。

First Media最初没有获得对上诉法院判决延期上诉的许可（leave to appeal），向终审法院申请时，才准予延期。终审法院于2018年3月12日审理了上诉申请，并作出同意判决。

1. 根据《承认和执行外国仲裁裁决公约》对执行仲裁裁决提出异议的申请，给予延长申请期限的适当标准

（What is the proper test for determining whether an extension of time should be granted for the purposes of an application to resist enforcement of an arbitral award under the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards）；以及

2. 根据《纽约公约》就执行仲裁裁决异议申请给予延长期限，是否需要考虑裁决是否已被仲裁地法院撤销的相关事实因素？

（In determining whether to extend time for the purposes of an application to resist enforcement on an arbitral award under the New York Convention, is the fact that the award has not been set aside by the courts of the seat of arbitration a relevant factor?）

Astro并未坚持First Media的被动救济行为存在恶意。

First Media观点

1.    一审法院和上诉法院在行使自由裁量权决定不延长期限时适用标准存在原则性错误；

The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal erred in principle in applying the wrong test when exercising their discretion not to extend the time limit）

 2.法院错误地考虑了不相关的因素，即在仲裁地裁决未被撤销的事实；

（Those courts erroneously took into account an irrelevant factor, namely, the fact that the award was not set aside at the seat）

 3. 总之，拒绝延长期限“明显错误”，造成“不正当且不合理的后果”。（Looked at overall, the refusal to extend time was“plainly wrong”, being “perverse ［3］and disproportionate in its consequences”）

Astro主张

Astro则主张上诉法院适当地行使了自由裁量权，因此应维持该裁定。裁决时，上诉法院遵循了Popplewell J in TernaBahrain Holding Company WLL v Al Shamsi [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 86案的裁定。CFA认为Terna Bahrain案对法院行使自由裁量权设定的标准是“精心设计”（ “elaboratelystructured”）的，并指出准予延期则为“例外”。

1. 下级法院就是否延长期限问题错误地行使了自由裁量权

CFA优先考虑一个更广泛的裁量延长期限的标准，也就是The Decurion [2012] HKCA 39一案中的标准，该案法院“审查了所有相关事实并考虑了那件整体正义性（overall justice）”，和“僵硬机械的标准（rigid mechanistic approach）是不适当的”。法院不应在决定是否行使裁量权时“轻视作为一要素的实体问题”（ “downgrade the merits as a factor”）。 CFA认为，本案适用Terna Bahrain的标准是不恰当的，并会“导致无法就没有有效仲裁协议问题进行适当权衡，如果认可此标准，将会完全削弱Astro一方提出的核心主张。”（“led to a failure to accord proper weight to the lack ofa valid arbitration agreement which, if recognised, would have wholly undermined the central arguments made on Astro’s behalf”.）

CFA还接受了First Media的如下意见，即Terna Bahrain案在执行法院而非仲裁地法院的适用有所区别，因为该案涉及了仲裁地的监督法院根据双方协议一致的程序规则撤销仲裁裁决，这“可能有理由对程序性时限设置更为严格的标准”（ “may justify a stricter approach to procedural time limits”）。

CFA认为，适用Terna Bahrain一案的标准，下级法院犯有原则性错误，导致他们“轻视了First Media与追加当事人之间根本没有有效仲裁协议这一事实”（downgrade the fundamentally important absence of a valid arbitration agreement between First Media and the Additional Parties）。这就等于未适当地考虑到有关事项，并有理由说服CFA干预下级法院的自由裁量权。

2. 下级法院本不应该考虑First Media不在仲裁地撤销仲裁裁决的决定

两个下级法院都依据了这样一个事实，即裁决并未在新加坡被撤销，因此该裁决“仍然有效，并对First Media设立了法律约束力的义务”（still valid and create legally binding obligations on First Media to satisfy them）。此外，一审法院认为First Media蓄意决定迟延不在时限内撤销裁定和判决。

First Media认为，在衡量这两个因素方面，下级法院犯了原则性错误并考虑了无关因素。“选择救济”（choice ofremedies）的原则赋予了First Media选择在仲裁地撤销裁决的“主动救济”，以及不予执行的“被动救济”。

CFA表示同意，并指出该原则在香港法已有反映，这给予了当事人在仲裁地撤销裁决及在仲裁地或任何地方不予执行裁决的选择权。成功撤销的程序提供了对强制执行的抗辩，但是当事人也可以选择以其他理由不予强制执行，而无需撤销裁决（或已申请并未能成功）。在CFA的观点中，“可单独选择这样做”。

其同意下级法院“将该裁决未在新加坡被撤销的事实作为拒绝延长期限的一个主要因素，与选择救济的原则相冲突”的决定（“treat the fact that the awards have not been set aside in Singapore as a major factor in refusing a time extension come into conflict with the choice of remedies principle”）。根据这一原则，一审法院本不应考虑（一）First Media蓄意决定不在规定时限内撤销强制执行令；（二）裁决未在仲裁地被撤销的事实。

CFA认为，First Media在香港无资产的情况下决定不在14天期限内申请撤销是完全合理的，特别是质疑了仲裁庭的管辖权以及明确保留进一步提出异议的权利的情况下。

3. First Media迟延不予执行申请并没有影响Astro权利，并且必须与不存在有效仲裁协议事实之间进行权衡

在处理下级法院所依据的三个要素中的两个要素后，CFA不得不考虑First Media迟延提出不予执行申请的问题。虽然承认该延迟是实质性的，但CFA认为除了可以补偿费用之外，Astro并未遭受其他实质性的损害。CFA认为，针对14个月的迟延必须权衡的是“根本性地缺少重要的”（“fundamentally important”）有效仲裁协议的情况，这“显然”构成了对执行裁决的抗辩。CFA认为，拒绝延期会导致拒绝听取First Media的意见，而该申请具有“决定性的强有力实体依据”（ “decisively strong merits”），并对其执行1.3亿美元的仲裁裁决作为惩罚，CFA认为“显然是根本不合理的”（ “self-evidently bewholly disproportionate”）。

CFA允许了上诉，同意就First Media申请撤销执行令而申请延期执行裁决和判决，允许自本判决作出后三个月延期时间。

1. 申请人代理律师的错误决定导致企业的巨大损失

本案件申请人代理律师在发起仲裁时，第一，没有全面考虑本案件的仲裁协议的全辖权问题，尽管注意到了SIAC的仲裁规则的追加第三人的规定，第二，在被申请人提出管辖权异议，并在仲裁庭作出管辖权决定，被申请人仍然坚持保留意见的情况下，没有及时妥善的处理管辖权问题，也就是果断选择诉讼的方式处理该案件。导致当事人花费大量的时间、费用和精力，最终还是竹篮打水一场空，希望国内的律师和当事人成分引起重视。

2. 仲裁保留异议权的前提下参与仲裁程序

本案件第一媒体在仲裁程序中提出了仲裁管辖权异议，但是仲裁庭做出有管辖权决定之后，该方并没有放弃参与仲裁程序，而是在充分保留异议的前提下参与仲裁，并有权适当时行使相应的权利，挽回了可能的重大损失。

3. 仲裁庭或者仲裁机构在决定管辖权时的强势做法

不少仲裁机构或者仲裁庭在决定管辖权时存在任意情况，需要当事人引起重视，我国企业要特别注意，由于我国企业不喜欢参与仲裁，往往就管辖权问题简单处理，甚至选择简单地不参与仲裁的决定，本人遇到一个在大陆之外的仲裁案件，当事人认为不需要参加仲裁，因为认为管辖权存在异议，尽管有道理，但是最后还是说服该当事人就管辖权问题正式提出异议，并要求仲裁庭首先审理管辖权异议的问题，但是该仲裁庭在程序令中还是做出只审理实体问题，不审理管辖权异议问题，为此，当事人发函提出异议，并拒绝参加实体审理的决定，之后，仲裁庭又改变立场，首先审理管辖权问题等等。

4. 国际仲裁非常专业，需要专业律师和顾问进行咨询，千万不能掉以轻心

本案件涉及到加入第三人的问题，该第三人本不是仲裁协议的当事人，但是根据SIAC的仲裁规则，仲裁庭做出了具有管辖权的决定。

Astro v Lippo: 

First Media appeal succeeds in Hong Kong

At its final attempt,First Media has overturned the Hong Kong courts’ earlier decisions to enforce five arbitral awards against it.

In a judgment dated 11 April, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA) unanimously allowed First Media’s appeal, set aside the orders of the courts below, and extended time for First Media to apply for leave to set aside the orders granting Astro leave to enforce the awards in Hong Kong.

This is along-awaited victory for First Media, which has always maintained that the awards were made without jurisdiction, despite its decision not to apply to set aside the tribunal’s award on jurisdiction. However, it is not the final hurdle. First Media must now convince the Court of First Instance, as the enforcing court, to accept its jurisdictional objection and set aside the enforcement orders, while Astro will certainly resist.

Astro Nusantara International B.V. and Others v. PT First Media TBK [2018] HKCFA 12; FACV 14/2017 (11 April 2018)

Background

This is along-running and well documented case. The factual background is fully explained in our earlier blogposts.

In summary,First Media contested the Singapore arbitration tribunal’s jurisdiction, on grounds that certain Astro entities (Additional Parties) had been improperly joined to the arbitration. Instead of applying to set aside the tribunal’s award on jurisdiction, First Media chose to participate in the arbitration. When the tribunal issued awards in Astro’s favour, First Media resisted enforcement in the Singapore courts, relying on the jurisdictional objection. It succeeded before the Singapore Court of Appeal, which found that it was entitled to choose between the “active” remedy of set aside, and the “passive” remedy of resisting enforcement.

Having failed to enforce the awards in Singapore, Astro commenced enforcement proceedings in Hong Kong. First Media did not initially resist, believing (erroneously) that it had no assets in the jurisdiction. By the time it discovered its mistake and applied to set aside the enforcement orders, its application was significantly out of time. The Hong Kong Court of Appeal rejected the application, despite agreeing that First Media had not acted in bad faith by choosing to exerciseits passive, rather than active, remedy. The Court of Appeal held that First Media had applied out of time to resist the Hong Kong enforcement, and refused to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit. In making its decision,the Court relied on three factors:

1.The length of the delay;

2. The fact that a deliberate decision was taken not toapply to set aside the enforcement orders within the prescribed time limit; and

3. The fact that the awards had not been set aside at these at of the arbitration.

First Media initially failed to obtain leave to appeal the Court of Appeal judgment. Only when it applied directly to the CFA was leave granted. The CFA heard the appealon 12 March 2018, and delivered its judgment earlier this week.

The CFA appeal

There were two questions before the CFA:

1. What is the proper test for determining whether an extension of time should be granted for the purposes of an application to resist enforcement of an arbitral award under the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Question 1);and

2. In determining whether to extend time for the purposes of an application to resist enforcement on an arbitral award under the New York Convention, is the fact that the award has not been set aside by the courts of the seat of arbitration a relevant factor? (Question 2).

Astro did not pursue its argument that First Media had acted in bad faith.

First Media submitted that:

1. The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal erredin principle in applying the wrong test when exercising their discretion not toextend the time limit;

§ Those courts erroneously took into account an irrelevant fact or,namely, the fact that the award was not set aside at the seat; and

2. Looked at overall, the refusal to extend time was “plainly wrong”, being “perverse and disproportionate in its consequences”.

Astro argued that the Court of Appeal had properly exercised its discretion, such that its decision should be upheld. In doing so, the Court of Appeal had relied on the decision of Popplewell J in Terna Bahrain Holding Company WLL v Al Shamsi [2013]1 Lloyd’s Rep. 86. The CFA described Terna Bahrain’s approach to the court’s discretion as “elaborately structured”, noting that it treats the grantof an extension as “exceptional”.

The CFA judgment

Lower courts’exercise of discretion to extend time was wrongly exercised

The CFA preferred a broader approach to discretionary extensions of time, as set out in The Decurion [2012] HKCA 39, in which the court “look[s] at all relevant matters and consider[s] the overall justice of the case”, and a “rigid mechanistic approach is not appropriate”. The court should not “downgrade the merits as a factor” in determining whether to exercise its discretion. The CFA held that the Terna Bahrain approach was inappropriately applied in this case, and “led to a failure to accord proper weight to the lack of a valid arbitration agreement which, if recognised, would have wholly undermined the central arguments made on Astro’s behalf”.

The CFA also accepted First Media’s submission that Terna Bahrain can be distinguished from the present application before an enforcing court not at the seat, because it involved an application to set aside an award at the seat,before the supervising court and under the procedural rules contractually agreed by the parties, which “may justify a stricter approach to procedural time limits”.

The CFA concluded that, in relying on the Terna Bahrain approach, the Courts below had erred in principle, leading them to “downgrade the fundamentally important absence of a valid arbitration agreement between First Media and the Additional Parties”. This amounted to a failure to take proper account of a relevant matter, and justified the CFA in interfering with the lower courts’ exercise of discretion.

Lower courts should not have taken into account First Media’s decision not to set aside the awards at the seat

Both lower courts relied on the fact that the awards had not been set aside in Singapore and were thus “still valid and create legally binding obligations on First Media to satisfy them”. In addition, the Court of First Instance held that First Media’s delay was a deliberate decision not to set aside the orders and judgment within time.

First Media submitted that, in giving weight to these two factors, the courts below had erred in principle and taken account of irrelevant factors. The “choice ofremedies” doctrine entitled First Media to choose between the “active” remedy of setting aside the award at the seat, and the “passive” remedy of resisting enforcement.

The CFA agreed,noting that the doctrine is mirrored in Hong Kong law, which gives parties the option to choose set aside at the seat, and resisting enforcement at the seat or elsewhere. Successful set aside proceedings provide a defence against enforcement, but parties can also choose to resist enforcement on other grounds, without having applied to set the award aside (or having applied and failed to do so). In the CFA’s view, “they are options which are independently available”.

It follows that the lower courts’ decisions to “treat the fact that the awards have not been set aside in Singapore as a major factor in refusing a time extension come into conflict with the choice of remedies principle”. Respecting that principle, the Court of First Instance should not have taken into account either (i) First Media’s deliberate decision not to apply to set aside the enforcement orders within the prescribed time limit; or (ii) The fact that the awards had not been set aside at the seat of the arbitration.

The CFA held that First Media’s decision not to embark upon a setting aside application within the 14 day time limit when there were no assets in Hong Kong at that point was entirely reasonable, particularly where the tribunal’s jurisdiction had been challenged and the right to bring further challenges was expressly reserved.

First Media’s delay in resisting enforcement did not prejudice Astro and must be balanced against the absence of a valid arbitration agreement

Having thus disposed of two of the three factors on which the lower courts relied, the CFA was left to consider First Media’s delay in resisting enforcement in Hong Kong.While accepting that the delay was substantial, the CFA held that Astro had not suffered substantial prejudice as a result, other than costs which can be compensated. The CFA considered that there must be balanced against the 14 month delay the “fundamentally important” absence of a valid arbitration agreement, which “clearly” gives rise to a defence to enforcement. In the CFA’s view, refusing an extension would deny First Media a hearing where its application has “decisively strong merits” and would penalise it to the extent of permitting enforcement of a US$130 million award. The CFA held that that would “self-evidently be wholly disproportionate”.

Appeal allowed

The CFA allowed the appeal, and extended the time for First Media to apply to set aside the orders granting leave to enforce the award and the judgment entered on the awards for three months from the date of the judgment.

By Simon Chapman