禁诉令最新报道-香港法院准予禁诉令以禁止在中国大陆提起诉讼

更新时间：2018-05-21 11:14:37  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1700次

香港高院在HKK2 Limited v Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited [2018] HKCFI 93案件中准予了一项禁诉令，以禁止在香港仲裁裁决的败诉方在中国法院提起平行诉讼程序。

该决定巩固了香港法院继续支持仲裁的立场及其支持仲裁程序以控制利用平行诉讼作为跨境诉讼策略的立场，这种诉讼策略甚至可能发生于胜诉方已经获得胜诉仲裁裁决。

禁诉令的使用

禁诉令的使用正逐渐成为限制一方在外国司法辖区内启动平行诉讼并扼制仲裁协议预期效力的一种日益普遍的方法。禁诉令不仅允许法院维护仲裁协议中包含的积极权利和义务，而且还允许维护消极义务，双方通过约定这些消极义务明确或默示地承诺不得在仲裁协议明确约定的管辖以外的任何地方启动诉讼程序。

案件事实

在2015年11月，因合资企业产生争议后，申请人在香港获得了仲裁裁决，并被香港法院准予可延期（leave）采取对被申请人执行裁决的措施。被申请人作出了各种不支付裁决的尝试，包括寻求限制申请人基于法定追偿函请求清算被申请人的救济。香港法院驳回了被申请人的申请，法官指出，被申请人的行为是“不道德的”，并显示了 “对香港法律体系的完整性的漠视及对香港高院的蔑视”。

2017年7月，被申请人在山东省潍坊法院启动了平行诉讼（2017年诉讼程序）。在2017年诉讼程序中被提出的索赔和当事人实际上与2013年被申请人提起的诉讼相同，该诉讼也是在潍坊法院进行（2013年诉讼程序），之后被申请人在潍坊法院的要求下撤回了该诉。

申请人在高等法院原讼法庭申请禁令，以禁止被申请人继续进行2017年诉讼程序，理由是被申请人提起该诉已违反了基础仲裁协议，鉴于该2017年诉讼程序是试图基于已由仲裁庭和香港法院决定的同一争议重新提起的诉讼，并且该争议已在2013诉讼程序中被提起，随后被撤回，因此被申请人的行为是无理的且具有压迫式的（vexatious and oppressive ）。 

高等法院原讼法庭裁定

法院准予了该禁令，理由是2017年诉讼程序属于仲裁协议被宽泛起草的范围，被申请人的索赔已在仲裁程序中被审议。因此，申请人有权请求禁诉令寻求或要求中止2017年诉讼程序。法官认为，允许被申请人继续进行2017年诉讼程序将会破坏仲裁庭对被申请人作出的不利裁决的权威性。

鉴于禁令的自由裁量性质，法院也考虑到了被申请人的不合理性（unconscionable）行为，指出其完全不尊重仲裁协议和仲裁程序，被申请人的行为也是“不道德的、应受责备的并且不可被接受的，因为这显示了其对香港法院以及我们金融法律体系完整性的无视和蔑视” （ 'unethical, reproachable and unacceptable, as showing disregard and contempt for the Hong Kong Court, and the integrity of our financial and legal system'.）。

评论

该决定进一步证明了香港在预防国外司法辖区内平行进行诉讼而违反事前达成的仲裁协议方面支持仲裁的立场。这是香港法院有意采取必要措施以防止仲裁裁决的不利一方在国外重启诉讼程序的有用案例。

值得注意的是，完美起草的商业协议中的仲裁协议对于任何为防止试图规避仲裁协议的相对方寻求有利的平行国外诉讼来说都是至关重要的。该等仲裁条款的重要性也被香港法院日益认可。

最后，需要认识到认可准予禁诉令以限制被申请人违反仲裁协议而在国外法院提起诉讼并非是香港法院在对外国法院行使权利。相反，禁诉令旨在赋予当事人约定的管辖进行仲裁的协议发生效力，并防止相对方实施“选择管辖”（"forum shopping"）的策略。因此，禁诉令并不是针对国外法院发出的，也不是为了约束外国法院，如本案中的潍坊法院。相反，他们是针对一方当事人作出的，而该方当事人必须遵守这一禁令的条款，否则会受到香港法院的效力制裁。

【英文原文】

Anti-suitinjunction update

Hong Kong grants anti-suit injunction to restrainproceedings in PRC after arbitral award obtained in Hong Kong

By Richard Keedy 

The High Court of Hong Kong has recently granted an anti-suit injunction restraining parallel proceedings in the courts of PRC brought by an unsuccessful party to an arbitration award obtained in Hong Kong.

The decision reinforces the Hong Kongcourt's continuing pro-arbitration stance and its support of the arbitral process to control the use of parallel proceedings as a cross-border litigation tactic even after an arbitral award has been obtained by a successful party.

 

Use of anti-suit injunctions

The use of anti-suit injunctions isbecoming an increasingly common method of restraining a party from launchingparallel proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction and frustrating the intendedeffects of an arbitration agreement. An anti-suit injunction allows the courtto uphold not only the positive rights and obligations contained in anarbitration agreement, but also the 'negative' obligation whereby both partiesexpressly or impliedly promise to refrain from commencing proceedings in any forumother than the forum specified in the arbitration agreement.

 

Facts

In November 2015, following a disputearising out of a joint venture partnership, the claimant obtained an arbitralaward in Hong Kong and was granted leave by the Hong Kong court to take stepsto enforce the award against the respondent. The respondent made variousattempts to avoid payment of the award including seeking to restrain theclaimant from petitioning for the winding up of the respondent on the basis ofa statutory demand. The respondent's application was refused by the Hong Kongcourt with the judge noting that the respondent's conduct had been 'unethical'and showed "disregard for the integrity of the legal system of Hong Kongand contempt for the High Court of Hong Kong".

In July 2017, the respondent commencedparallel proceedings before the Weifang Court in the Shandong Province in China(2017 Proceedings). The claims made and the parties named in the 2017Proceedings were in fact identical to proceedings brought by the respondent in2013, also in the Weifang Court (2013 Proceedings) which were withdrawn by therespondent at the request of the Weifang Court.

The claimant sought an injunction in theHong Kong Court of First Instance to restrain the respondent from continuingthe 2017 Proceedings on the grounds that they were brought in breach of theunderlying arbitration agreement and the respondent's conduct was vexatious andoppressive given that the claims in the 2017 Proceedings were an attempt tore-litigate the same issues that had been decided by the arbitral tribunal andthe Hong Kong court, and which had been raised in the 2013 Proceedings andsubsequently withdrawn.

 

CFI Decision

The court granted the injunction on thegrounds that the 2017 Proceedings fell within the scope of the widely draftedarbitration agreement and the claims made by the respondent had already beenconsidered in the arbitration proceedings. The claimant was thereforecontractually entitled to request the injunction sought or to ask for the 2017Proceedings to be stayed. The judge held that to permit the respondent tocontinue the 2017 Proceedings would be to discredit the findings made by thearbitral tribunal against the respondent.

Given the discretionary nature ofinjunctions, the court also took into consideration the unconscionable actionsof the respondent, noting that it had a 'complete disrespect for thearbitration agreement and the arbitral process and that the conduct of therespondent was also 'unethical, reproachable and unacceptable, as showingdisregard and contempt for the Hong Kong Court, and the integrity of ourfinancial and legal system'.

 

Comment

The decision provides further evidence ofHong Kong's stance as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction in preventing parallelproceedings in foreign jurisdictions in breach of a pre-agreed arbitrationagreement. It is another helpful example of the Hong Kong court's willingnessto take the necessary steps to protect an arbitral award from beingre-litigated in separate foreign proceedings by an obstructive counterparty.

It is worth noting that a well draftedarbitration agreement is crucial in any commercial agreement in order toprevent a counter party attempting to circumvent an arbitration agreement infavour of pursuing parallel foreign proceedings. The importance of sucharbitration clauses is becoming increasingly recognised by the Hong Kongcourts.

Finally, it is important to recognise thatgranting an anti-suit injunction to restrain a defendant’s pursuit of overseascourt proceedings brought in breach of an agreement to arbitrate is not anexercise of power by the Hong Kong court over a foreign court. Rather, ananti-suit injunction is intended to give effect to the parties' agreement toarbitrate in a particular forum and to prevent "forum shopping"tactics of an obstructive counterparty. Consequently, anti-suit injunctions arenot addressed to or binding upon the foreign court i.e. the Weifang court inthis instance. Rather, they are directed at a party, who must comply with theterms of such an injunction or be liable to effective sanctions in the HongKong courts.