仲裁协议的管辖权问题（英国判例）

更新时间：2018-05-28 15:50:59  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1942次

英国商事法院（“该院”）在其2018年4月24日的判决中，驳回了Dreymoor Fertilisers Overseas PTE Ltd ("Dreymoor")根据《1996年仲裁法》（“1996仲裁法”）第67条和第32条提起的异议。判决请见：‘’阅读原文‘

该案是关于仲裁条款的解释和适用，该条款管辖因Eurochem Trading GMBH (“ECTG“)与Dreymoor之间的复杂经营结构以及多个合同引起的争议。ETCG是一家化肥销售公司， Dreymoor是一家国际贸易公司。Dreymoor试图挑战ECTG对其提起的两个仲裁案件的仲裁庭管辖权（一个是LCIA仲裁案件和一个是ICC仲裁案件），其主张（1）应对LCIA仲裁条款进行狭义解释，以排除ECTG对其提起的非契约性仲裁索赔；以及（2）关于ICC仲裁案件， ECTG与Dreymoor双方之间没有就仲裁协议。

法院遵循了Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40一案中提出的自由解释，LCIA仲裁条款涵盖了“因本合同而产生的任何争议或索赔”。这些措辞足以涵盖ECTG向LCIA提起的非契约性纠纷仲裁，而驳回其根据第67条提起的管辖权异议。就ICC仲裁而言，法院再次认为该仲裁条款的用语非常宽泛，足以涵盖其对Dreymoor提起的争议。因此，驳回其根据第32条提起的管辖权异议。

背景及争议问题

ETCG和Dreymoor达成了两种化肥分销协议，即（1）二磷酸铵和磷酸一铵（DAP/MAP）；及（2）尿素。Dreymoor将在印度担任ECTG的销售代理，并在全球其他地方也是ECTG直接贸易伙伴。ETCG声称Dreymoor和其两位前雇员之间存在腐败行为，这使得Dreymoor作为ECTG代理人获得了更多的高利润交易以及有利于其的合作条款。

DAP/MAP和尿素交易均涉及（i）一个框架代理协议（ “代理协议”）；（ii）Dreymoor与非印度境内客户之间的单独销售合同（“销售合同”）；（iii）ETCG与印度公司之间的销售合同，其中Dreymoor作为代理人（“第三方合同”）。在DAP/MAP代理协议中没有约定管辖条款或争议解决条款，而《尿素代理协议》包含了一简短格式的LCIA仲裁条款。每一销售合同均规定了LCIA仲裁，而每一第三方合同均包含了一个ICC仲裁条款。

ECTG在两个仲裁中提起了指控Dreymoor存在腐败行为的仲裁程序：（i）LCIA仲裁是关于销售合同下的尿素和DAP/MAP安排；以及（ii）ICC仲裁是关于Dreymoor作为代理人的第三方合同；

Dreymoor对两个仲裁庭的管辖权均提起了管辖权异议。

关于LCIA仲裁庭管辖权，异议如下：

1. 就涉嫌腐败行为的争议解决而言，是代理协议而非销售合同约束该争议，因为指控的索赔“重心”是Dreymoor违反了代理协议而非销售合同。DAP/MAP代理协议未包含争议解决条款。被指控的贿赂是发生在尿素代理协议之前的行为，而简短格式的LCIA条款不能被解释为涵盖此类索赔。因此，争议应被提交至“适当的”法庭，对此Dreymoor认为应是俄罗斯的法庭。

2.在解释方面，腐败指控不属于这些合同的仲裁条款范围，即便其中的任何条款均可适用。仲裁条款适用于“与本协议有关的争议”或“因本合同产生的任何争议”，但所指控的腐败行为不仅是非契约性索赔，而且也早于合同本身发生，因为该腐败行为据称旨在诱导达成这些合同。

关于ICC仲裁庭管辖权，异议如下：

Dreymoor认为其不是第三方合同的当事人，因此不受仲裁条款约束。因此：

1. ECTG 和 Dreymoor之间未就仲裁达成协议。

2. 即便存在仲裁协议，ECTG提起的索赔不在仲裁事项范围内。

对互为关联合同中约定不一致的仲裁安排的解释

此一套复杂的合同性安排，各合同具有不一致的争议解决条款。因此，法院决定需要考虑“作为理性商界人士的当事人就如何以及在哪里解决他们之间可能出现的争议必定会有意采取的方式”（ “what the parties, as reasonable business people, must be taken to have intended as to how and where disputes which might arise between them should be resolved“.）。运用这种“理性商界人士”（“reasonable business people” ）的标准，法院认为，理性的商界人士本不会想到，如之后发生关于Dreymoor是否通过行贿而达成一定数量的不同销售合同的问题，这些问题只能根据代理协议中的争议解决程序解决，而不是根据各单独销售合同中规定的争议解决程序解决。

此外，法院指出，Dreymoor提到的“重心分析”并不一定能支持Dreymoor的立场。AmTrust Europe Ltd v Trust Risk Group SpA [2015] EWCA Civ 437 一案判决中引入的“重心”（ “centre of gravity”）方法，基于哪个是约束争议解决的“重心”合同的争议解决条款，检测互为关联合同中的哪一合同是争议的“重心”。法院认为没有理由认为贿赂争议的“重心”是发生在代理协议项下的，相反，其认为销售合同与索赔的联系更相关。

在适用Sebastian Holdings v Deutsche Bank [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 106一案中上诉法院提出的 “合理商业解释” （该案认为合理的解释方式是“找到……合理的商业解释……致使明确的约定生效，即使这可能会导致一系列协议的当事人之间的争议解决方式存在一定程度上的分化”）时，法院确认本案将会得出同样的结论。

仲裁条款的范围

法院认为，在某些特殊情况下，如当事人在达成合同之时已认为在相关领域可能发生任何的非契约性索赔是奇怪的或无可争议的(outlandish or unarguable)，那么仲裁条款将会被解释为是排除侵权或其他非契约性索赔。

然而，本案中不存在该等例外情形。相反，法院采用了“自由或一般的解释”（如首次在Fiona Trust一案中提出的），并认为这样起草的仲裁条款将涵盖与非契约性索赔有关的争议，包括先合同虚假陈述和诱导达成合同的先行贿赂。

第三方合同

关于第三方合同中包含的ICC仲裁协议下的管辖权问题，法院认为Dreymoor是第三方合同的一方，尤其是因为Dreymoor作为代理人，在那些合同中被称为一方 “当事人”，并承担一定的履行义务。Dreymoor曾主张，第三方合同中的仲裁条款对Dreymoor与其他方之间的争议并无效力，因为仲裁协议规定，ECTG作为卖方和买方（印度公司）的任何一方，但并非是作为代理人的Dreymoor，均将选定一名仲裁员。然而，法院驳回了这一反驳观点，认为仲裁员的任命机制并未改变Dreymoor作为当事人的合同意图，所有与合同有关的争议都应进行仲裁。如该争议发生在ECTG和Dreymoor之间，那么他们将各自任命一名仲裁员。只有发生涉及卖方、买方和代理人的争议时，Dreymoor才被否定对仲裁员的选择权，并且必须接受卖方和买方的指定。

评论

复杂的契约性安排包含不完全一致的管辖权/仲裁条款并不少见。英国此前的判例已经建立了多种可适用于此类争议的方法。然而，这些方法在处理该等问题时仅是提供了指引，每个具体案件需要仔细逐案分析。在本案中，法院没有选择一种特别的方法来解释这些仲裁条款。相反，法院考虑了几种不同的分析方法，无论采用哪种方法，法院基于这些均得出了相同的结论。

本案可能最有意思的是，它分析了在这一合同安排中框架代理协议的有限关联性和重要性，得出的结论是在基础销售合同和第三方合同中的争议解决条款足以涵盖代理人在缔结这些协议时的行为。然而，很难从这个特定的判决中得出太多的结论。从该判决清楚看到需要赋予各方为管辖各类合同下的争议一致性选择伦敦仲裁的有效性（在明确选择的情况下），特别在面对Dreymoor主张仲裁条款应被忽略并且管辖权应被赋予俄罗斯法院的情况。

英文 原文

English Court holds that arbitration clauses in individual sales contracts govern the disputes arising from corrupt arrangement to induce the contracts when an “umbrella agent agreement” is silent about dispute resolution

In a decision dated 24 April 2018, the English Commercial Court (the “Court“) dismissed  challenges brought under s67 and s32 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act“) by Dreymoor Fertilisers Overseas PTE Ltd. (“Dreymoor“).

The case concerned the construction and application of arbitration clauses to disputes arising out of a complicated business structure with multiple contracts between Eurochem Trading GMBH (“ECTG“), a fertiliser seller, and Dreymoor, an international trading company. Dreymoor sought to challenge the jurisdiction of tribunals constituted in two arbitrations (one LCIA and one ICC) commenced against it by ECTG, arguing (1) for a narrow interpretation of an LCIA arbitration clause to exclude non-contractual claims brought against it by ECTG; and (2) that there was no agreement to arbitrate between ECTG and Dreymoor in respect of the ICC arbitration.

The Court followed the liberal interpretation propounded in Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40. The LCIA arbitration clause covered “any dispute or claim arising out of this Contract“. Those words were wide enough to cover the non-contractual disputes which ECTG had referred to LCIA Arbitration and the s67 challenge was dismissed. In respect of the ICC arbitration, the Court again held that the terms of the arbitration clause were very wide and sufficient to cover the disputes referred under it against Dreymoor. The s32 action therefore also failed.

Background and Issues

ECTG and Dreymoor entered into two fertiliser distribution arrangements in respect of (1) Di-ammonium phosphate and Mono-ammonium phosphate (DAP/MAP); and (2) Urea. Dreymoor was to act as ECTG’s sales agent in India and as ECTG’s direct trading partner for the rest of the world. ECTG alleged that there were corrupt arrangements between Dreymoor and two former employees of ECTG which enabled Dreymoor to obtain more volume of high margin products deals and favourable appointment terms as an agent.

Each of the DAP/MAP and Urea arrangements involved (i) an Umbrella Agency Agreement (each an “Agency Agreement“); (ii) individual sales contracts between Dreymoor and customers outside India (the “Sales Contracts“); and (iii) sales contracts between ECTG and Indian companies, in which Dreymoor was acting as agent (the “Third Party Contracts“). There was no jurisdiction or dispute resolution clause in the DAP/MAP Agency Agreement, while the Urea Agency Agreement contained a short-form LCIA arbitration provision. Each of the Sales Contracts provided for LCIA Arbitration, while the Third Party Contracts each contained an ICC arbitration clause.

ECTG brought proceedings in respect of its corruption allegations against Dreymoor in two arbitration fora: (i) LCIA arbitration in relation to the Urea and DAP/MAP arrangements under the Sales Contracts; and (ii) ICC arbitration in relation to the Third Party Contracts where Dreymoor acted as agent.

Dreymoor challenged the jurisdiction of both arbitral tribunals, arguing in respect of the LCIA Tribunal:

3.    In terms of resolution of disputes over the alleged corrupt arrangements, the Agency Agreements, not the Sales Contracts, governed the dispute because the “centre of gravity” of the claims was alleged breach of the Agency Agreements and not the Sales Contracts. The DAP/MAP Agency Agreement did not contain a dispute resolution clause. The bribery complained of must have occurred before the Urea Agency Agreement and the short-form LCIA clause could not be construed as covering such claims. As a consequence, disputes should be referred to an “appropriate” forum, which Dreymoor contended to be Russia.

4.    As a matter of construction, the corruption allegations did not fall within the arbitration clauses of these contracts, even if any of those were applicable. The arbitration clauses referred to “disputes on this agreement” or “any dispute… arising out of this contract“, but the corrupt arrangements alleged were not only non-contractual claims but also predated the contracts themselves, since they allegedly aimed to induce these contracts.

In respect of the ICC Tribunal, Dreymoor argued it was not a party to the Third Party Contracts, and therefore was not bound by the arbitration clauses in them. Consequently:

3.    there was no agreement to arbitrate between ECTG and Dreymoor.

4.    alternatively if there was, the claims brought by ECTG did not fall within it.

Construction of inconsistent arbitration arrangement in inter-related contracts

This was a complex set of contractual arrangements with inconsistent dispute resolution provisions. The Court therefore decided it needed to consider “what the parties, as reasonable business people, must be taken to have intended as to how and where disputes which might arise between them should be resolved“. [56] Applying this “reasonable business people” test, the Court held that reasonable business people would not have intended that if there were to arise questions as to whether there had been bribery by Dreymoor which induced a number of different Sales Contracts, these were to be resolved only under the dispute resolution procedures of the Agency Agreements, rather than under the dispute resolution procedure specified in the individual Sales Contracts. [57]

In addition, the Court noted that the “centre of gravity” analysis referred by Dreymoor did not necessarily support Dreymoor’s position. The “centre of gravity” approach, which was introduced in the decision in AmTrust Europe Ltd v Trust Risk Group SpA [2015] EWCA Civ 437, examines which of the inter-related contracts is the “centre of gravity” of the dispute, based on which the dispute resolution provisions of the “centre of gravity” contract will govern its resolution. The Court held that there was no reason to suggest that the “centre of gravity” of the bribery dispute was located in the Agency Agreements and held instead that the Sales Contracts were no more distant from the claim.[61]

Applying the “commercially rational construction” approach advanced by the Court of Appeal in Sebastian Holdings v Deutsche Bank [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 106 which held that the correct approach of construction was to “find … the commercially-rational construction … giving effect to clear agreements, even if this may result in a degree of fragmentation in the resolution of disputes between parties to a series of agreements”, the Court confirmed that the same conclusion would be reached.

The scope of arbitration clauses

The Court said that in certain exceptional circumstances, an arbitration clause would be construed as excluding a tortious or other non-contractual claim if the parties would, at the time of conclusion of their contract, have considered that any possible non-contractual claim in the relevant area would have been outlandish or unarguable. [54]

However, no such exceptional circumstances applied in this case. Rather, the Court employed a “liberal or general interpretation” (as first espoused in the case of Fiona Trust) and held that the arbitration clauses as drafted would cover disputes which related to non-contractual claims, including for pre-contractual misrepresentation and antecedent bribery inducing the contract. [53]

Third party contracts

As regards jurisdiction under the ICC arbitration agreements contained in the Third Party Contracts, the Court held that Dreymoor was a party to the Third Party Contracts, not least because Dreymoor, as Agent, was referred to as one of the “Parties” in those contracts and assumed certain performance obligations. Dreymoor had argued that the arbitration clauses in the Third Party Contracts did not work with disputes between Dreymoor and other parties because the arbitration agreements provided that each of ECTG as Seller and the Buyer party (Indian company), but not Dreymoor as Agent, would choose one arbitrator. However, the Court rejected this obstacle holding that the mechanism for the appointment of the arbitrators did not change the intention of the contract that Dreymoor should be a party and that all disputes arising out of or relating to the contract should be subject to arbitration. [68] Where the dispute was one between ECTG and Dreymoor, then they would each appoint an arbitrator. Only if the dispute concerned the Seller, the Buyer, and the Agent, was Dreymoor denied a choice of arbitrator and must accept the appointments made by the Seller and the Buyer. [69]

Comment

It is not uncommon for complex contractual arrangements to contain jurisdiction/arbitration clauses which are not fully consistent with each other. Prior English authorities have established a variety of approaches to be applied to such disputes. However, such approaches only offer guidance when tackling such issues, and careful case-by-case analysis is required in each scenario. In this case, the Court did not opt to prefer a particular approach to the construction of these arbitration clauses. Rather, the Court considered several different methods of analysis on the basis that the same conclusion was reached no matter which approach was employed.

The case is perhaps most interesting in its analysis of the limited relevance and importance of the umbrella Agency Agreements in this contractual arrangement, and the conclusion that the dispute resolution provisions in the underlying Sales and Third Party contracts were wide enough to encompass disputes regarding the conduct of the Agent in concluding those agreements. However, it is difficult to draw too many conclusions from this particular decision. There is a clear sense in the judgment of a need to give effect to the parties’ consistent choice of London arbitration to govern disputes under the various contracts (where an explicit choice was made), particularly when faced with Dreymoor’s argument that the arbitration provisions should be ignored and jurisdiction given to the Russian courts.

For further information, contact Nick Peacock, Partner, Vanessa Naish, Professional Support Consultant, Noriaki Wakabayashi, Legal Assistant, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.