仲裁条款的并入问题（新南威尔士州上诉法院判决）

更新时间：2018-05-28 15:53:32  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1735次

在华纳兄弟电影制作有限公司诉肯尼迪米勒米切尔电影有限公司[2018]（Warner Bros Feature Productions Pty Ltd v Kennedy Miller Mitchell Films Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 81）一案中，新南威尔士州上诉法院推翻了新南威尔士州最高法院的判决，根据当事人的协议将争议提交加尼佛尼亚州进行仲裁，并根据澳大利亚1974年国际仲裁法（Cth）第7（2）条裁定中止诉讼程序。上诉法院采用求真务实（pragmatic）的方法来确定公司集团其他成员所使用的格式条款合同中的仲裁条款是否应该并入双方当事人的协议中。

背景

华纳兄弟电影制作有限公司（WB Productions）与肯尼迪米勒米切尔电影有限公司（KMMF）和肯尼迪米勒米切尔服务有限公司（KMMS）达成一个协议。该协议采取“协议书”（Letter Agreement）的形式。

除其他事项外，争议涉及KMMS和KMMF根据协议书为电影制作提供的服务获得奖金的权利。KMMF和KMMS向新南威尔士州最高法院对WB Productions提起诉讼。WB Productions请求中止这些诉讼程序的依据是，根据协议书，争议应提交加利福尼亚州进行仲裁。WB Productions的观点是，协议书中包含一项仲裁条款，因为协议中包含以下条款：“条款的平衡是指'A'名单上的导演和制片人的WB和WB标准，但须在WB和WB的习惯参数内真诚谈判“（并入条款）（“The balance of terms will be WB and WB standard for ‘A’ list directors and producers, subject to good faith negotiations within WB’s and WB’s customary parameters” (Incorporation Clause).）。相应地，WB Productions试图在华纳兄弟集团其他成员使用的标准格式合同中并入一项仲裁条款。

主审法官，Hammerschlag J，驳回了中止诉讼程序的申请，并裁定新南威尔士州最高法院有权决定该事项。它主张，KMMF和KMMS作为证据展示的合同WB Productions并非当事人，并且“没有任何证据证明[WB Productions]本身作为合同当事人订立标准合同条款”。法官（his Honour）也拒绝将该条款解读为包含 WB Pictures，因为该协议明确地将'WB'定义为WB Productions。 因此，WB Productions与公司华纳兄弟集团的其他成员不同，没有任何“标准”条款可以并入协议书中。

申请人WB Productions和华纳兄弟娱乐公司随后向新南威尔士州上诉法院上诉。

上诉法院裁决

首席法官Bathurst作出判决，并借鉴了 Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104 在解释协议书时采用的方法，该协议书要求：“审议双方当事人在合同中使用的语言 ，合同涉及的情形以及合同所保障的商业目的或目标。”

“consideration of the language used by the parties in the contract, the circumstances addressed by the contract and the commercial purpose or objects to be secured by the contract.”

上诉法院审议的第一个问题是，协议书是否包含条款，即“WB关于“A”名单上的导演和制片人在真诚谈判之前的标准”。法官认为，对该条款的适当解释是，标准条款“被立即并入，同时为后续谈判的确切效果留有余地。”因此，并入条款并未要求双方在并入标准条款之前进行真诚谈判。

确定的第二个主要问题是，仲裁条款是否包括在协议书中。关于这一点，上诉法院不同意主审法官的判决。Bathurst CJ指出，有证据表明，WB Productions（合同实体）由WB Pictures控制，事实上，该影片的谈判发生在WB Pictures的业务主管与高级副总裁兼总法律顾问以及KMMF和KMMF的美国代表之间。在这种情况下，认为该条款中提到的“WB标准”是整个华纳兄弟集团内对公司普遍采用的“标准”条款。上诉法院并没有根据WB Productions的使用频率来评估什么构成“标准”条款，或在“足够多的案件”中使用，上诉法院倾向于将“WB标准”描述为“为了华纳兄弟集团公司与'A'名单导演和制片人签订协议而提供的习惯性条款。”

上诉法院随后指出了一些因素，这些因素表明华纳兄弟集团有关'A'名单的导演和制片人的协议中习惯性地提供了仲裁条款。其中包括：2009年的两份格式合同都包含相同的仲裁条款; 自2000年初以来一直使用这一仲裁条款（正如证据中的56项协议所表明的），并且在相同当事人（包括WB Productions）之间另外签署的“就业证明”协议中也使用了基本相似的仲裁条款。

因此，法院主张，2009年格式合同中要求在加利福尼亚进行仲裁的条款作为一个条款并入了协议书，该条款对“A”名单上的导演和制作人提供了“WB”标准。鉴于与仲裁有关的程序受加利福尼亚州法律，公约国家（美国））的法律管辖，诉讼程序根据1974年国际仲裁法（Cth）第7（2）条中止。

评 论

在这个案件中，虽然上诉法院判定一个公司实体使用的标准仲裁条款可以并入同一集团的另一个实体的合同中是很重要的，但必须指出，这主要是合同解释问题， 仅适用个案（case-by-case）。如果没有并入条款（Incorporation Clause），就不会有仲裁协议，尽管仲裁条款直接包含在协议书中，这个争议不太可能一开始就出现。该案强调，起草仲裁协议时务必注意确保将其并入合同。

【英文部分】

New South Wales CA imports arbitration clause from one entity to another, stays proceedings

By Brenda Horrigan

In Warner Bros Feature Productions Pty Ltd v Kennedy Miller Mitchell Films Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 81, the New South Wales Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court by referring a dispute to arbitration in California pursuant to the parties’ agreement and by ordering a stay on court proceedings pursuant to section 7(2) of Australia’s International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). The Court of Appeal applied a pragmatic approach to determine whether an arbitration clause found in standard term contracts used by other members of a company’s corporate group should be incorporated into the parties’ agreement.

Background

Warner Bros Feature Productions Pty Ltd (WB Productions) entered into an agreement with Kennedy Miller Mitchell Films Pty Ltd (KMMF) and Kennedy Miller Mitchell Services Pty Ltd (KMMS). The agreement was in the form of a ‘Letter Agreement’ (Letter Agreement).

A dispute arose regarding, among other things, KMMS and KMMF’s entitlement to a bonus payment under the Letter Agreement for services provided in connection with the production of a film. KMMF and KMMS brought proceedings against WB Productions in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. WB Productions sought a stay on those proceedings on the basis that, pursuant to the Letter Agreement, the dispute should be submitted to arbitration in California. WB Productions’ position was that an arbitration clause had been incorporated into the Letter Agreement as the Letter Agreement contained the following clause: “The balance of terms will be WB and WB standard for ‘A’ list directors and producers, subject to good faith negotiations within WB’s and WB’s customary parameters” (Incorporation Clause). Relevantly, WB Productions sought to incorporate an arbitration clause which was found in standard form contracts used by other members of the Warner Bros Group.

Hammerschlag J, the primary judge, dismissed the application for a stay on the proceedings and determined that the New South Wales Supreme Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter. It was held that none of the contracts which were exhibited as evidence by KMMF and KMMS were agreements to which WB Productions was a party, and that there was “no evidence of any regularity of contracting on the standard terms by [WB Productions] itself”. His Honour also refused to read the clause as including WB Pictures given that the Letter Agreement unambiguously defined ‘WB’ as WB Productions. As such, WB Productions, as distinct from other members of the corporate Warner Bros Group, did not have any terms which were ‘standard’ and which could be incorporated into the Letter Agreement.

The applicants WB Productions and Warner Bros Entertainment Inc subsequently appealed the decision to the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal Decision

Chief Justice Bathurst delivered the leading judgment and drew upon the constructional approach in Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104 in interpreting the Letter Agreement which required: “consideration of the language used by the parties in the contract, the circumstances addressed by the contract and the commercial purpose or objects to be secured by the contract.”

The first issue for the Court of Appeal’s consideration was whether the Letter Agreement incorporated terms which were “WB Standard for ‘A’ list directors and producers prior to good faith negotiations occurring.” His Honour held that the proper construction of the clause was that the standard terms “were immediately incorporated, while leaving room for subsequent negotiations about their precise effect.” Accordingly, the Incorporation Clause did not require that the parties engage in good faith negotiations prior to the incorporation of standard terms.

The second and primary issue for determination was whether the arbitration clause was incorporated into the Letter Agreement. On this point the Court of Appeal disagreed with the decision of the primary judge. Bathurst CJ noted that the evidence established that WB Productions (the contracting entity) was under the control of WB Pictures and the fact that negotiations in respect of the film occurred between WB Pictures business affairs executive in conjunction with the Senior Vice-President and General Counsel and that of the United States representatives of KMMF and KMMS. In these circumstances, it was held that ‘WB standard’ referred to in the clause were terms which were ‘standard’ for companies generally, throughout the Warner Bros Group. Rather than evaluating what constitutes a ‘standard’ term based on the frequency of usage by WB Productions or use in a “sufficient preponderance of cases”, the Court of Appeal preferred to describe terms which are ‘WB standard’ as “terms which are habitually proffered by companies in the Warner Bros group for agreements with ‘A’ list directors and producers.”

The Court of Appeal then noted a number of factors which suggested that the arbitration clause was habitually proffered in Warner Bros Group agreements relating to ‘A’ list directors and producers. These included: that both of the 2009 Form Agreements contained the same arbitration clause; that this arbitration clause had been used since the early 2000s (as indicated by the 56 agreements in evidence) and that a substantially similar arbitration clause was also used in additional ‘Certificate of Employment’ agreements made between the same parties (including WB Productions).

As a result, it was held that the clause requiring arbitration in California contained in the 2009 Form Agreements was incorporated as a term which was ‘WB standard for ‘A’ list directors and producers’ into the Letter Agreement. Given that the procedure in relation to arbitration was governed by Californian law, the law of a Convention country (the United States), the proceedings were stayed under s 7(2) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth).

Comment

While it is significant that in this case the Court of Appeal determined that a standard arbitration clause used by one corporate entity could be incorporated into the contract of another entity in the same group, it must be noted this was largely a question of contractual construction which will always be approached on a case-by-case basis. Absent the Incorporation Clause there would have been no arbitration agreement, although had the arbitration clause been included directly within the Letter Agreement then it is unlikely that this dispute would have arisen in the first place. The case reinforces that it is important for those drafting arbitration agreements to take care to ensure that they are incorporated into the contract.