承租人是否有权就货损提起仲裁，仲裁裁决存在法律错误被法院发回重新审理（英国案例）

更新时间：2018-07-06 14:03:42  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1538次

在MV Fehn Heaven案中，货物因出租人错误熏蒸受损，记名提单持有人将货物权利转让给承租人，承租人向出租人提起仲裁并获得了有利裁决。出租人认为承租人不享有诉权遂提交上诉申请并被准予上诉。2018年6月27日，英国商事法院做出裁定，认为仲裁庭的裁决存在法律错误并将案件发回仲裁庭重新审理。

判决请见：

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2018/1606.html

1. 案件背景

出租人（上诉人）与承租人签订租船合同，约定由出租人所有的MV Fehn Heaven承运1300吨向日葵和1800吨小麦。出租人就两种货物分别出具两份提单，提单收货人均为SC JUSTORGANIC Srl公司。船到卸货港之前，货物由于熏蒸受损。

2. 仲裁程序

承租人提起仲裁，主张货物由于熏蒸导致无法按有机粮食销售，并将货物折价卖给丹麦的买方，两种货物的损失金额分别为153400欧元和171353欧元。仲裁庭支持了承租人的全部仲裁请求。

2017年12月22日，根据英国仲裁法第57（3）条的规定，出租人要求仲裁庭阐述其认为承租人享有诉权所依据的事实证据。仲裁庭回复称，承租人基于货主转让诉讼权利的函件而获得诉权。

3. 上诉焦点问题：法律错误

仲裁裁决的争议焦点在于承租人是基于债权转让而获得诉权还是基于租船合同直接向出租人主张货损权利。

4. 承租人的主张及依据

承租人的主张本身存在矛盾之处，其始终主张自己的损失金额，并没有提到货主的损失，但仲裁庭最终在回复出租人的询问时，却认定承租人提起仲裁的权利是基于债权转让而获得。

裁决第26段写道：“承租人认为其有权向出租人索赔因……擅自熏蒸而导致的所有损失，并提供证据证明提单持有人Justorganic已正式将其对该货物可能享有的利益转让给承租人。”

"Charterers submitted that they had title to sue Owners for all the losses incurred as a result of the … unauthorised fumigation and provided proof that the Bill of Lading Holders, Justorganic, had formally assigned any interest it might have had in this cargo in Charterers' favour."[ emphasis added]。

裁决第63段写道：仲裁庭将注意力转向承租人所请求的损害赔偿。承租人认为出租人的违约行为导致其遭受的损失总计369919欧元，加上利息和费用......” 上述陈述在有关谁遭受实际损失方面自相矛盾。

"63. The Tribunal turns its attention to damages, as claimed by the Charterers. It was Charterers' submission that the breach by Owners resulted in themsuffering losses in the total of €369,919.00 plus compound interest and costs…”

5. 法律错误的法定原则

仲裁庭的裁决理由主要包括：

(1)仲裁员确认事实。该过程包括对任何有争议的事实进行认定；

The arbitrator ascertains the facts. This process includes the making of findings on any facts which are in dispute;

 (2)仲裁员确定法律适用。该过程不仅包括确定立法和普通法的所有实质性规则，而且还包含对合同有关部分的确定和解释，以及查明那些在裁定时必须考虑的事实；及

The arbitrator ascertains the law. This process comprises not only the identification of all material rules of statute and common law, but also the identification and interpretation of the relevant parts of the contract, and the identification of those facts which must be taken into account when the decision is reached;

(3)仲裁员根据所确定的事实和法律作出裁定。

 In the light of the facts and the law so ascertained, the arbitrator reaches his decision.

6. 认定裁决是否存在错误

“通常情况下，一种合理的商业方式意味着，若不靠近用细致的法律之眼寻找裁决中的漏洞、不一致和错误，且不出于挫败仲裁程序的目的，不能从裁决中发现实质性错误”(Polaris Shipping Co Ltd v Sinoriches Enterprises Co Ltd [2015] EWHC 3405 (Comm) at [2]案)。

"a reasonable and commercial way, expecting, as is usually the case, that there will be no substantial fault to find with it" and without approaching it "with a meticulous legal eye endeavouring to pick holes, inconsistencies and faults in awards, and with the objective of frustrating the process of arbitration" (Polaris Shipping Co Ltd v Sinoriches Enterprises Co Ltd [2015] EWHC 3405 (Comm) at [2]).” : "… the principle that an assignee could not recover more from the debtor than the assignor could have done had there been no assignment"。

7. 出租人（上诉人）的观点及依据

出租人就（1）承租人是否享有诉权，以及（2）货主（债权出让人）及承租人（债权受让人）是否存在损失发表其观点。

出租人认为，仲裁庭认定承租人享有诉权，与他们是否存在损失并有权获得损失赔偿是两个不同的问题。出租人援引Chitty on Contracts (32nd edition at paragraph 19-075)的原则，即“受让人从债务人处弥补的损失不能超过出让人在不转让债权的情况下能够弥补的损失”，认为基于该基本原则，由于出让人自身未主张损失，因而承租人也无权主张损失。在本案中，作为提单持有人的货主并没有实际损失，因此货主本身不能主张损失。

出租人认为，仲裁庭违反基本原则，默认在出让人（货主）本身无权主张损失的情况下，承租人可以主张该实际损失。因此，仲裁庭在法律问题上存在方向性错误并因此得出错误的结论。

8. 承租人（被上诉人）的观点及依据

（1）承租人认为，仲裁庭裁定的损害赔偿是Justorganic （根据已转让给承租人的记名提单）作为收货人有权弥补的损失，因而根本就没有法律问题。为支持该点，承租人指出，在裁决中并未认定Justorganic 没有遭受损失。

The damages awarded by the Tribunal were the loss that Justorganic was entitled to recover as the consignee under the straight bills of lading which it assigned to the Charterers, and therefore the question of law does not arise at all. In support of this, the Charterers point to the fact that there is no finding in the Award that Justorganic did not suffer loss.

（2）作为选择，承租人辩称，若Justorganic 实际上没有遭受损失，则租船人遭受损失并有权独立于该转让行为（即根据租船合同）向出租人索赔。承租人表示，The Fjord Wind [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 307案与本案相似，该案表明承租人有权以租船合同当事人的身份起诉出租人，因而记名提单及其转让都与案件无关。

Alternatively, the Charters argue that, if Justorganic did not in fact suffer loss, then the loss was suffered by the Charterers and the Charterers had title to sue the Owners independent of the assignment i.e. under the Charterparty. They say that the case of The Fjord Wind [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 307 is analogous and shows that the Charterers had title to sue the Owners as a party to the Charterparty (and therefore the straight bills of lading and the assignment are irrelevant).

（3）又或者，承租人在其书面意见书中主张，若其没有诉权但确实遭受损失，作为一般原则的例外，他们仍然可以弥补损失。承租人的律师援引一系列判例证明，承租人遭受的损失可以被视为Justorganic的损失，承租人有权得到弥补使该损失不致于消失到“法律黑洞”中。该律师援引Mann J在Pegasus Management Holdings SCA v Ernst & Young [2012] EWHC 738 (Ch)案中分析，Mann J最终在第30段总结道：“若犯了一个与财产有关的错误且损失会因此产生，转让的事实……并不意味着此后必须承认出让人不能称其已遭受损失……从法律上说，损失流动可以而且应当仍被视为出让人的损失，且受让人可以得到弥补。黑洞要尽可能（因所有黑洞都应当）避免。

In the further alternative, the Charterers contended (in written submissions) that, if they did not have title to sue but did suffer loss, they can still recover the loss as an exception to the general principle. Counsel relied on a line of authorities to demonstrate that the loss suffered by the Charterers may be treated as a loss of Justorganic, which the Charterers are entitled to recover so that the loss does not disappear into a "legal black hole". The court was referred to Mann J's analysis of the authorities in Pegasus Management Holdings SCA v Ernst & Young [2012] EWHC 738 (Ch), which culminated in his conclusion at paragraph 30 that: "Where a wrong has been committed in relation to property, and loss is capable of arising as a result, the fact of an assignment… does not mean that it thenceforth has to be acknowledged that the assignor no longer can be said to have suffered loss… the law says that the loss flowing can and should still be treated as a loss of the assignor which the assignee can recover. Black holes are to be (as all black holes should be) avoided where possible."

（4）然而，承租人（被上诉人）的律师在口头陈述中主张，如果Justorganic 遭受可弥补的损失，则不会出现法律问题；或者如果承租人遭受损失，它就享有诉权。该律师对仲裁庭的认定表达立场，情况要么是第一种要么是第二种，第三种关于“法律黑洞”的备选根本不会出现。法院接受了上述意见，因此不对与第三种选择有关的判例进行处理。

However in oral submissions, counsel for the respondent submitted that if Justorganic suffered recoverable loss then the question of law does not arise; alternatively if the loss was suffered by the respondent, it had title to sue. Counsel therefore submitted on the findings of the Tribunal the position must be either the first or second alternative and the third alternative of the "legal black hole" does not arise. I accept that submission and do not therefore propose to deal with the line of authority relating to the third alternative.

9. 双方争议焦点以及法院认定事实

法院认为，仲裁裁决的第63段和第64段似乎是仲裁庭对承租人损失的认定：“承租人认为出租人的违约行为导致其遭受的损失总计369919欧元”。

Paragraphs 63 and 64 of the Award does appear to be a finding by the Tribunal the Charterers suffered loss: "It was Charterers' submission that the breach by Owners resulted in them suffering losses in the total of €369,919.00"

这似乎与答辩意见第35段所陈述的相一致：“因此，承租人显然遭受损失，以下情况可以作为证明：承租人向Greenford签发的信贷总额为……213742.78 欧元，向 Spack签发的信贷总额为……156176.20 欧元。”

This appears to be consistent with paragraph 35 of the Reply Submissions which stated: "the loss was therefore clearly suffered by the charterer as is evidenced by the total credits issued by them to Greenford amounting to… €213,742.78. The total credits issued by the charterer to Spack amounted to… €156,176.20…"[Emphasis added]

法院赞同如下观点，即仲裁裁决没有明确认定Justorganic未遭受损失，且如果Justorganic遭受损失，就不存在法律错误。

I accept there is no express finding in the Award that Justorganic did not suffer loss. If Justorganic suffered loss, there was no error of law.

承租人的律师主张，Justorganic根据记名提单有权弥补全部损失，且该损失已转让给承租人。该律师援引The Sanix Ace [1987] 1 Lloyd's LR 465 Hobhouse J案支撑其论点，即货物所有人有权就该货物的灭失或损坏提起诉讼并弥补损失。承租人已签订买卖合同使其能够向买方收款或从卖方处获得赔偿，该事实不能剥夺其弥补损失的权利（根据The Baltic Strait [2018] EWHC 629 (Comm)案）。这是所有权利益或占有利益的损失，应得到补偿。

Counsel for the respondent submitted that Justorganic was entitled to recover full loss under the straight bills of lading. Counsel submitted that it was that loss that it assigned to the respondent. Counsel relied on The Sanix Ace [1987] 1 Lloyd's LR 465 Hobhouse J as authority for the proposition that an owner of goods was entitled to sue and recover damages in respect of loss or damage to those goods. The fact that the plaintiff had contracts of sale or purchase which enabled him to collect the price from his buyer or obtain compensation from a seller did not disentitle him from recovering from damages: The Baltic Strait [2018] EWHC 629 (Comm). It was the loss to the proprietary or possessory interest that was compensated.

出租人的律师提出，从裁决表面不能明显确定，Justorganic在损失发生时是否为货物所有人。该律师认为Sanix Ace案和Baltic Strait案可以进行区别，因为在这种情况下，财产和风险被分割，在出售之前，财产和风险“必须已经通过”。然而， 裁决书中并没有任何声明证明这一推论是正当的。

Counsel for the appellant submitted that it was not apparent on the face of the award whether Justorganic were the owners at the time the physical damage occurred. Counsel submitted that The Sanix Ace and Baltic Strait can be distinguished because in that case property and risk was split and that here property and risk "must have passed" prior to the on sale. There is however no statement in the Award which would justify such an inference. 

10.   法院裁定

法院不能确定法庭在裁决时是否正确地回答了法律问题：从裁决可以推断，仲裁庭认定承租人有权根据转让行为（而非根据租船合同）获得诉权，并基于此种认定作出裁决。法院无法确定仲裁庭是否裁定Justorganic 遭受损失，仲裁庭似乎没有对诉权问题和 Justorganic 是否遭受损失的问题进行区分。若Justorganic 作为出让人没有遭受实质损害，仲裁庭在适用法律和假定承租人可以弥补损失就存在错误。

In this case the court cannot determine whether the Tribunal answered the question of law correctly on the face of the Award: it is to be inferred from the Award (for the reasons discussed above) that the Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the respondent had title to sue based on the assignment, rather than the charterparty, but having proceeded on this basis, this court cannot determine whether the Tribunal determined that Justorganic suffered a loss. The Tribunal does not appear to have distinguished between the issue of title to sue and the issue of whether Justorganic suffered a loss. If in fact there was no substantial damage suffered by Justorganic, then the Tribunal has incorrectly applied the law and assumed that the respondent could recover the losses, even though no loss had been suffered by Justorganic as assignor.

关于承租人提出的备选论点，即认为仲裁裁决可因未在裁决中未阐明的理由获得维持，承租人认为其已遭受损失且有权根据租船合同得到弥补。承租人还辩称如果承租人享有诉权且Justorganic 未遭受损失，则承租人遭受损失并享有诉权。对于以上观点，法院认为，不能以承租人遭受损失使其有权根据租船合同得到弥补作为支持仲裁裁决的依据。根据承租人的备选论点支持仲裁裁决缺乏依据，尤其是考虑到仲裁庭作出裁决的基础是承租人根据转让行为（而非租船合同）获得诉权。

In relation to the alternative argument advanced by the charterers, that the Award may be upheld for reasons not expressed in the Award, the respondent contends that the respondent suffered loss and is entitled to recover under the charterparty. The respondent contends that if the respondent had title to sue and Justorganic did not suffer loss, then the loss was suffered by the charterers and it had title to sue. In my view this court cannot uphold the Award on the basis that the respondent suffered loss which would entitle it to recover under the charterparty. There is no basis in the Award for upholding the Award on this alternative basis given in particular the finding in paragraph 36 of this judgment that the tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the respondent's title to sue was based on the assignment rather than the charterparty.

基于上述理由，法院支持上诉人（出租人）的上诉请求，将该案发回仲裁庭重审。

For the reasons set out above the appeal succeeds and in the circumstances the matter must be remitted to the Tribunal.

11. 简要评论

如果出租人是货物的所有人，有权就承租人承运的货物遭受损失提起诉讼/仲裁，本案出租人是以提单记名收货人转让权利而获得诉权（仲裁庭认定），但是裁决并没有认定转让人遭受损失，因此法院认为裁决存在法律问题，并被发回仲裁庭重新审理。

仲裁庭作出的仲裁裁决需要特别注意事实和法律依据，避免存在矛盾之处。