英国仲裁法第67条规定就默示合同中的仲裁条款做出裁定

更新时间：2018-05-21 11:03:14  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1604次

在SEA2011 Inc v ICT Ltd [2018] EWHC 520（Comm）案中，伦敦商事法院驳回了挑战仲裁员管辖权的三项理由，其中两项基于仲裁条款的当事人识别问题（identification of the parties），一项是基于合同性质。该判决非常有趣，根据英国法，普通合同规则（ordinary rules of contract）可以协助确定合同当事人，以及在合同“默示”的情况是否并入仲裁条款。

案件背景

SEA2011 Inc（“SEA2011”）是一家加拿大公司。ICT Ltd（“ICT”）是一家英国公司。ICT与SEA2011之间的争端是因为违反2011年1月28日的销售代理协议（“销售协议”），该协议包含仲裁地为英国的仲裁条款。该事项被提交仲裁。SEA2011是仲裁程序中的被申请人。

销售协议的当事人声称（purported）是“SEA Inc”和“ICT Ltd”。然而合同谈判结束时，ICT的法定名称是INL td，并且没有叫“ICT Ltd” 的英国公司。在提交仲裁六个月后，SEA2011的律师基于上述观点，主张ICT不是合同的一方当事人，当然也不是仲裁条款的当事人，并在此基础上对仲裁庭的管辖权提出异议。此外，SEA2011主张，它也不是销售协议的一方当事人，该协议涉及一个独立的法人实体SEA Inc，SEA2011于2011年12月才成立。

仲裁员拒绝了SEA2011的管辖权异议。根据“1996年仲裁法”第67条规定，SEA2011对仲裁员得出的管辖权结论提出异议，该条允许在英国仲裁的一方当事人就仲裁庭的实质性管辖权（substantive jurisdiction）的裁决提出异议。

商事法庭裁定

1. ICT和SEA2011是否为该销售协议的当事人

法官认定，销售协议中名称为ICT Ltd而非IN Ltd是一个错误，可以通过解释予以纠正。他驳回SEA2011的主张，即只有起草的合同是任意或者不合理（arbitrary or irrational）的情况下才能进行更正。需要明确的是合同中存在明显错误，而且必须明确更正内容。在名称更改之前，IN Ltd用ICT标识进行交易，并且当时没有在英国注册的ICT Ltd公司。对处于当事人地位和背景知识的理性一方来说，协议双方的当事人是清楚的。

2. SEA2011是否是销售协议的当事人

法官认为SEA2011与ICT之间存在默示合同（implied contract）。SEA2011于2012年3月接收了SEA Inc业务，并无缝接管了与ICT的交易。双方之间的交易在几年内几乎是一样的，并适用销售协议的条款。因此，他们默示同意之间的合同关系依据销售协议的条款。

3. 仲裁条款是否为默示合同的一部分

法官认为，根据英国法，合同是否包含仲裁条款并没有适用特殊规则，这同样适用默认合同。如果条款需要修改，如果条款要求他们承担不合理的过多义务（undue onerous obligations），或者如果他们没有注意到这些条款时，那么可能推断双方不同意该条款。在本案中，双方当事人都了解协议（因此也了解仲裁条款），交易仍然像以前一样继续（不存在承担过多义务），并且该条款不需要修改。双方同意仲裁条款是基于作为当事人的理性商人通过正常商业的现实方式而确定。

4. 仲裁员是否因为同意仲裁通知而缺乏管辖权

SEA2011提出了管辖权的另外一个问题，仲裁员最初不应接受ICT关于存在默认合同的观点。理由是，在仲裁通知中，ICT并不依赖于“默示合同”，而是主张该销售协议已转让给SEA2011。随后，ICT 承认没有转让问题。直接在仲裁员面前，ICT提出了“默示合同”的主张。

法官很快就驳回了这一主张，认为“仲裁员有权就适当提交的事项做出决定，但这一原则并非一种约束（straightjacket）......”。法官驳回SEA2011主张的三个主要理由为：第一，当提出默示合同的主张时，SEA2011并未向仲裁员提出异议。即使默示合同问题不在仲裁通知内，但SEA2011同意扩大范围管辖范围。第二，将一般解释规则适用于仲裁通知时，任何情况下默示合同的问题均属于其中提出的问题。第三，就该问题SEA2011引用的某些权威解释（authorities）认为放弃争议观（abandonment of an argument）点，即ICT在其默认合同主张问题上并不存在这样的问题。

 评论

该判决是一个有趣的案例，根据英国法，可以通过合同法的基本原则来解决诸如确定合同当事人以及仲裁条款是否包含在合同中的问题。最后，在承认法官关于仲裁通知的有力结论同时，提醒人们一开始诉请具有一致性的好处。

附注：英国仲裁法第67条(裁决异议：实体管辖权)

(1) 仲裁程序的一方当事人(经通知其他当事人和仲裁庭)可向法院申请:

(a) 就仲裁庭的实体管辖权对裁决提出异议;或

(b) 因仲裁庭无实体管辖权,要求法院裁定宣布仲裁庭就实体方面作出的裁决全部或部分无效。

当事人可能会丧失异议权(见第73条)且其异议权不得违背第70条第2款和第3款的限制性规定。

(2) 按照本条对有关管辖权裁决向法院提出的申请如尚未决定，仲裁庭可继续进行仲裁程序并作出进一步的裁决.

(3) 对根据本条就仲裁庭实体管辖权对其裁决提出异议的申请，法院可以命令方式:

(a) 确认裁决，

(b) 修改裁决，或

(c)全部或部分撤销裁决

(4)针对本条项下法院决定的上诉应取得法院的准许。

[英文原文]

English Commercial Court considers arbitration clause in implied contract in s.67 challenge

By Stephen Lacey; Sadie Buls

 

In SEA2011 Inc v ICT Ltd [2018] EWHC 520 (Comm), London’s Commercial Court rejected three challenges to an arbitrator’s jurisdiction, two based on the identification of the parties to the arbitration clause and one based on the nature of the contract. The judgment is an interesting illustration of how, when English law applies, ordinary rules of contract can assist in identifying both the parties to a contract and whether an arbitration clause is incorporated where that contract is “implied”. 

Background

SEA2011 Inc (“SEA2011”), was a Canadian company.  ICT Ltd (“ICT”), was an English company. A dispute between ICT and SEA2011 arose from an alleged breach of a sales agency agreement dated 28 January 2011 (“the Sales Agreement”) which contained an arbitration clause with seat in England. The matter was referred to arbitration. SEA2011 was the respondent in the arbitration proceedings.

The parties to the Sales Agreement purported to be “SEA Inc” and “ICT Ltd”. At the time it was concluded, however, ICT’s legal name was IN Ltd, and there was no UK company called “ICT Ltd”.  Six months after the reference to arbitration, SEA2011’s solicitors relied on the above to argue that ICT was not a party to the contract, including the arbitration clause, and challenged the arbitrator’s jurisdiction on that ground. Further, SEA2011 argued that it too was not a party to the Sales Agreement, which referred to SEA Inc, a separate legal entity. SEA2011 was only incorporated in December 2011.

The arbitrator rejected SEA2011’s jurisdictional challenges. SEA2011 challenged the arbitrator's conclusions under s67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 which permits a party to an arbitration with seat in England to challenge a tribunal’s award as to its substantive jurisdiction. 

Commercial Court decision

Were ICT and SEA2011 parties to the Sales Agreement?

The judge found that naming ICT Ltd rather than IN Ltd in the Sales Agreement was a mistake which could be corrected as a matter of construction. He rejected SEA2011’s argument that the correction could only be made if the contract as drafted would be arbitrary or irrational. All that was required was a clear mistake in the contract, and that it be clear what correction must be made. Before the change of name, IN Ltd traded as ICT and no company called ICT Ltd was registered at that time in the UK. It would be clear to a reasonable person in the parties’ position and with their background knowledge who the parties to the agreement were.

As to whether SEA2011 was a party to the Sales Agreement, the judge held that an implied contract existed between SEA2011 and ICT. SEA2011 adopted SEA Inc’s business in March 2012 and seamlessly took over its dealings with ICT. The dealings between the parties continued to be practically the same for a number of years and referred to the terms of the Sales Agreement as if they continued to apply. They therefore impliedly agreed to be in a contractual relationship on the terms of the Sales Agreement.

Was the arbitration clause part of the implied contract?

As to this question, the judge took the view that, under English law, there are no special rules which apply when deciding whether an arbitration clause is incorporated into a contract, and this extends to implied contracts. The parties might be presumed not to have consented to it if the clause required modification, if it subjected them to undue onerous obligations, or if they lacked notice of it. In the instant case, however, both parties had knowledge of the agreement (and therefore of the arbitration clause), dealings continued as before (there were no onerous obligations) and the clause did not require modification to work between the parties. The parties’ consent to the arbitration clause was established in the normal, commercially realistic manner from the perspective of reasonable business people in the parties’ position.

Did the arbitrator lack jurisdiction because of the content of the Notice of Arbitration?

SEA2011 raised an additional jurisdictional point before the judge. It asserted that the arbitrator should not originally have accepted ICT’s arguments as to the existence of an implied contract. The basis for this submission was that in the Notice of Arbitration, ICT did not rely on an “implied contract” but instead contended that the Sales Agreement had been assigned to SEA2011. Subsequently, ICT had accepted that there had been no assignment. It was only directly before the arbitrator that ICT raised its “implied contract” argument.

The judge was quick to dismiss this argument, stating that it “is trite law that arbitrators have jurisdiction to decide only matters properly referred to them, but this principle does not act as a straightjacket…”. The judge identified three main reasons to reject SEA2011’s argument. First, SEA2011 had not raised such a complaint before the arbitrator when the implied contract argument was aired in that forum. Even if the implied contract point had not fallen within the Notice of Arbitration, SEA2011 had therefore agreed that the scope should be widened. Second, applying ordinary rules of construction to the Notice of Arbitration, the issue of an implied contract in any event came within the matters raised therein. Third, certain authorities relied upon by SEA2011 in this context regarded the abandonment of an argument, which ICT had not done in relation to its implied contract argument. 

Comment

This judgment is an interesting illustration that, insofar as English law falls to be applied to such matters, issues such as identifying the parties to a contract and whether an arbitration clause is incorporated where that contract is “implied”, can be resolved by basic principles of contract law. Finally, whilst acknowledging the judge’s robust conclusions as to the notice of arbitration, it is a reminder of the benefits of consistency in pleadings from the outset.