适用1996年仲裁法第45条规定，法院裁定双方并未达成仲裁和解，重启仲裁程序

更新时间：2018-06-19 11:31:46  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1284次

超级豪华游艇仲裁案：适用1996年仲裁法第45条规定，法院裁定双方并未达成仲裁和解，重启仲裁程序

在最近一项裁决中（Goodwood Investments Holdings Inc. v Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions AG [2018] EWHC1056 (Comm)），英国法院已经开始考虑（当事人）申请以第45节条款对初步法律问题进行裁决的请求。根据“1996年仲裁法”， 允许此类请求，但在实践中相对较少。其可以被认为是一个在庭前提出裁决初步问题的教科书示范例：双方的“无损法定权利”函件是否（对于这些函件，仲裁员在任何情况下均不应审查）达成了一项具有约束力的和解协议？

判决请见“阅读原文”：或

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2018/1056.html

背景 – “无损讼费以外的权利”函件中的潜在和解

Goodwood投资控股有限公司（以下称“买方”）和Thyssenkrupp工业解决方案股份有限公司（以下称“建造商”）对超级豪华游艇的制造工艺以及某些建造商保证条款存在争议。由此买方申请仲裁，寻求（i）宣告性救济（ii）特定履行，或替代性损害赔偿金。仲裁庭确定了为期5周的开庭审理时间。

双方在无损法定权利的前提下进行了各种函件往来。买方的立场是双方达成了约束性和解（协议）但建造商对此表示反对。

适用于英国法院的第45条规定

双方同意提请法院裁定该（是否达成约束性和解协议）的争议，但不能就待确定法律问题的确切表达达成一致。因此，仲裁庭确切地表达了该问题，并准许当事人根据《英国仲裁法》第45节第二条第二项向法院提起诉讼。此后买方又提出了两个问题供法庭参考，建造商对此表示无异议。尽管双方同意（就是否达成和解协议提请法庭裁定），但法官仍就其是否有管辖权决定初步法律问题以及此类决定是否适宜而开展独立评估。最终他得出结论，因为对法庭裁决的援引应当最终解决该（双方是否达成约束性和解协议）问题，因此他具有必要的管辖权，并且应该继续进行庭审。

法庭的裁定：未达成和解

（尽力维护机密性的同时 - 见下文）法官着手摘录了有关函件，总结了双方无争议的法律原则。

事实上，法官发现双方并未达成有约束力的和解。法官认为，往来函件构成了各种要约和还盘，并引入了附加条款和新条款，以及“受限于”要求正式和解协议和董事会批准的用语，因此在函件中并未找到要约和承诺的实例。值得一提的是，法官驳回了一种论点，即必要的董事会批准仅仅是“橡皮图章”，其不应阻碍和解协议的存续。他强调了董事行使独立判断并以公司最佳利益行事的职责，因此经董事会批准的协议（尽管并无迹象暗示该类批准会被给予）对于已达成有约束力的和解至关重要。

对于所有法律问题，法院的答复是，由于未达成和解协议，因此仲裁可以继续进行。

有两方面论点需要注意：

第36部分对“无损讼费以外的权利”之往来函件的类推

法官认为，为了方便日后仲裁费分摊的仲裁裁决被用于费用的缴纳，一些要约据称是根据英国庭审规则第36部分（这些条款涉及在特定情形下庭审中当事人承担费用的后果）类推而得出的。法官拒绝对仲裁中企图对第36部分进行类推的优点以及是否会引发类似的仲裁费后果发表看法。

维持信函的“无损法定权利”性质

基于判决的公开性加之法官未达成和解之裁定，法官注意到他非常谨慎地将其阐述限定在解释和确定法律问题所需的必要范围内。在仲裁庭尚未决定争议的实质内容和不应考虑此类函件的情况下，判决中过多的细节将无法恰当地维系某些函件中的“无损讼费以外的权利”之性质。

评 论

该决定举例说明了第45节条款对本案法律问题的适用，即这些法律问题可以从针对一项争议和解的初步决定的仲裁程序中排除，在这种情况下，仲裁程序可以继续进行而不拘泥于和解问题。同时，法官非常谨慎地注意到案件的公开性和函件的机密性之间的微妙矛盾，故其必须基于此作出判决。

考虑援引第45节条款的当事人应铭记以下几点：

1.如果当事人对法院关于涉案法律问题的表述没有达成一致意见，仲裁庭可能会确切地表述这些问题，而法庭可能会乐于采纳此类表述;

2.当事人可以向法院详细阐述涉案法律问题;

3.任何情况下，特别是当以第45节条款适用于争议的最终和解为目的时，法院将独立开展工作以决定其是否具有决定这些问题的必要管辖权以及其决定这些问题是否适宜;

4.当答复某些法律问题时，即涉及不适宜向仲裁庭呈现的无损法定权利函件，第45节条款规定的程序在该情况下的适用将非常适宜。

【英文部分】

Luxury superyacht arbitration relaunched following rare section 45 application to the English court

By Nick Peacock

In a recentdecision, Goodwood Investments Holdings Inc. v Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions AG [2018] EWHC1056 (Comm), the English court has considered a section 45 request for a ruling on a preliminary point of law. Requests of this nature are permissible under the Arbitration Act 1996, but are comparatively rare in practice. This was arguably a textbook example of a preliminary issue properly put before a court: did the parties’ without prejudice correspondence – which the arbitrators should not review in any event – constitute a binding settlement agreement?

Context–potential settlement in “without prejudice save as to costs”correspondence

Goodwood Investment Holdings Inc. (the “Purchaser“) and Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions AG (the “Builder“) were in dispute regarding the workmanship on a luxury superyacht and certain Builder’s warranties. The Purchaser commenced arbitration, seeking (i) declaratory relief and (ii) specific performance or, in the alternative, damages. A 5 week arbitration hearing wasfixed.

The parties exchanged various without prejudice communications. The Purchaser’s position was that a binding settlement had been reached. The Builder disagreed.

Section 45 application to the English court

The parties agreed to refer this issue to the court, but could not agree on the precise formulation of the issue to be determined. The Tribunal, therefore, formulated the issue and gave permission to approach the court under section 45(2)(b). The Purchaser then raised two further questions for the court’s consideration, with which the Builder agreed. Notwithstanding the parties’ agreement, the judge embarked on an independent assessment of whether he had jurisdiction to determine them and whether it would be appropriate to do so. He concluded that he had the necessary jurisdiction and that it was appropriate to proceed, sincethe reference to the court should finally dispose of the issue.

The court’s analysis: no settlement

After setting  out extracts of the relevant correspondence (while attempting to preserve theconfidential nature – see below), the judge summarised the legal principles,which were uncontested between the parties.

On the facts, he found that the parties had not concluded a binding settlement. Instead of finding an instance of offer and acceptance, the judge held that the correspondence constituted various offers and counteroffers, with the introduction of additional and new terms, and “subject to” language requiring a formal settlement agreement and board approval. In particular, the judge rejected the argument that the necessary board approval was mere “rubber stamping” and ought not to prevent the existence of a settlement agreement.He emphasised a director’s duty to exercise independent judgment and to act in the best interest of the company, with the consequence that an agreement subject to board approval (without the implication that it would be given) wasfatal to the notion of a binding settlement having been reached.

The court’s answers on all the questions were that there had been no settlement agreement and that the arbitration could, therefore, proceed.

There are two side points to note:

Part 36 analogy in “without prejudice save as to costs” correspondence

The judge observed that some offers were said to have been made by analogy with Part 36 of the English court procedural rules (which provisions in court litigation entail costs consequences in certain circumstances), in order potentially to be used in costs submission at the conclusion of the arbitration in apportioning costs. The judge declined to express a view as to the merits of the attempt to make an analogy to Part 36 within an arbitration and whether it could bring about similar costs consequences.

Preserving the “without prejudice” nature of correspondence

Noting the public nature of the judgment and, given his conclusion that there had been no settlement, the judge observed that he was careful to confine his account to what was necessary in order to explain and determine the question of law.Excessive detail within the judgment would sit uncomfortably with the “without prejudice save as to costs” nature of certain communications, in the context where the Tribunal was yet to determine the substance of the dispute and properly ought not to have regard to such communication.

Comment

This decision exemplifies the utility of section 45 for questions of law that can properly be carved out of the arbitration proceedings for a preliminary determination that settles an issue, with the result – in this case – that the arbitration may proceed without lingering doubts as to the settlement question. At the sametime, the judge was very careful to be mindful of the delicate tension between the publicity of the case and the confidential nature of the communications on the basis of which he had to make his judgment.

Parties considering a section 45 application should bear in mind the following points:

1.   if there is no agreement on the formulation of the question for the court, the Tribunal may formulate the question and the courtmay be happy to adopt that formulation;

2.   parties can expand the questions for the court;

3.   in any event, the court will embark on an independent exercise to determine whether it has the necessary jurisdiction to determine the questions and whether it is appropriate to determine them, with particular regard to the object of a section 45 application being the final settlement of the issue;

4.   the section 45 procedure may be apposite when the answer to the question involves consideration of without prejudice correspondence that would be inappropriate to show to the Tribunal.