香港上诉法院：执行仲裁裁决时适用的普通法诉讼

更新时间：2018-07-06 14:05:10  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1880次

香港上诉法院：执行仲裁裁决时适用的普通法诉讼

 

Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co Ltd v Eton Properties Ltd [2016] 2 HKLRD 1106与Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co Ltd v Eton Properties [2018] HKCFI 910两案这两个历时已久的诉讼程序出现两个关键进展。香港上诉法院认为，当事人在签订仲裁协议之时已作出默示承诺，即他们将遵守任何后续仲裁裁决的条款。如一方不履行裁决，这可能在普通法下产生一个独立的诉因，使香港法院有权授予包括损害赔偿在内的一系列救济。这些诉讼程序也确立香港一审法院具有中止诉讼程序的法定权力，以待上级法院就是否准予上诉作出裁定。

 

背景

Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co Ltd v Eton Properties Ltd [2016] 2 HKLRD 1106案与Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co Ltd v Eton Properties[2018] HKCFI 910案这两个历时已久的诉讼程序出现两个关键进展。香港上诉法院认为，当事人在签订仲裁协议之时已作出默示承诺，即他们将遵守任何后续仲裁裁决的条款。如一方不履行裁决，这可能在普通法下产生一个独立的诉因，使香港法院有权授予包括损害赔偿在内的一系列救济。这些诉讼程序也确立香港一审法院具有中止诉讼程序的法定权力，以待上级法院就是否准予上诉作出裁定。

2003年，Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co Ltd与Eton Properties Ltd就开发厦门某块土地达成协议。该土地使用权人为Xiamen Legend，XiamenLegend为Hong Kong Legend的子公司，Hong Kong Legend的股权由Eton持有。

根据协议，Xinjingdi应向Eton支付1.2亿元人民币以获得土地使用权并用于建造和出售公寓楼。Eton随后将其在Hong Kong Legend持有的股权转让给Xinjingdi。

然而，在Hong Kong Legend股权被转让给Xinjingdi之前，Eton声称终止该协议。Xiamen Legend随后自行开发该土地，用于建造、出售公寓楼。

该协议包含一条提交中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（CIETAC）仲裁的仲裁条款，其中规定中国法为准据法，仲裁地为北京。

CIETAC仲裁

2006年，CIETAC仲裁庭签发一份支持Xinjingdi的裁决。该裁决裁令Eton为其迟延交付土地的行为支付赔偿金127.5万元人民币，并要求Eton将其持有的Hong Kong Legend股权转让给Xinjingdi以履行其协议义务。然而，Xinjingdi和仲裁庭均未意识到，在仲裁期间，Eton已经开始一轮重组程序，其股权在这个过程中被稀释。根据协议转让股权已经不可能，致使仲裁庭裁令继续履行的裁决失去价值。

Xinjingd随后请求厦门法院强制执行裁决，但厦门市中级法院驳回了该申请，理由是Hong Kong Legend的资产不在中国法院管辖范围内。因此，Xinjingd请求在香港执行该裁决。

香港诉讼程序

 

（1）法定执行

香港一审法院根据旧的《仲裁条例》（Cap. 341）承认该裁决并签发了执行令。但由于Eton的重组，该裁决缺乏实际效力。因此，Xinjingd开始在香港法院对Eton和另外9名与Eton有关联的公司或个人提起诉讼。

（2）普通法诉讼

Xinjingd对这一裁决提起的普通法诉讼包括两个子诉讼。首先，Xinjingd利用香港一审法院签发的强制执行令请求获得Eton的损害赔偿金，以代替裁决所裁令的继续履行行为。其次，Xinjingd对所有被告提起原诉，其理由是他们串谋重组Eton以逃避协议的执行。香港一审法院驳回Xinjingd的申请，Xinjingd提出上诉。

2、香港上诉法院

香港上诉法院认为，当事人在签订仲裁协议之时已作出默示承诺，即他们将遵守任何后续仲裁裁决的条款。Eton未履行裁决的行为已违反默示保证并使Xinjingd遭受损失。该行为产生一个独立的诉因，使适当的救济措施包括支付损害赔偿金。

上诉法院概括了原告依据该诉因提起诉讼必须满足的三个标准。首先，原告必须证明争议已有效提交仲裁。第二，必须存在有利于原告的裁决。第三，被告必须未能履行裁决。本案中，上诉法院认为Xinjingd已符合这三个标准。

上诉法院还认为，其有权依据普通法裁定Eton支付损害赔偿金。与法定执行程序相反，普通法允许法院授予包括损害赔偿金在内的一系列救济，即便仲裁庭没有作出此种裁决。

请求执行的当事人必须选择其中一种救济。

香港一审法院:申请中止程序

2016年5月，双方均向香港终审法院请求准予上诉。2017年11月，Xinjingd就进一步进行诉讼申请指示。2017年11月，Eton向香港一审法院申请中止诉讼程序，直到香港终审法院就当事人的上诉申请作出裁定。

Xinjingd辩称，由香港一审法院中止诉讼程序并不合适，只有上诉法院或终审法院有权中止执行一审法院的判决和裁定。Xinjingd主张，如判决不要求支付金钱或履行义务（根据《香港终审法院条例》第26条），只有上诉法院和终审法院享有准予临时中止执行直至终审法院裁定是否准予上诉的默示权利，并享有准予中止执行以待上诉的固有管辖权。Xinjingd主张，在这种情况下，申请中止诉讼程序即是申请中止执行。

一审法院认为，在目前情况下，确实不存在要求Eton向Xinjingd支付任何款项的裁定，只存在一个裁定要求对损害赔偿金进行评估，但也不存在Eton请求中止“执行”以待上诉的裁决。因此，就Xinjingd提出的只有上诉法院和终审法院有权中止诉讼程序的主张，一审法院未予以接受并认为一审法院自身也有权准予临时中止诉讼程序。

Chan法官在阐明一审法院的立场时指出，虽然上诉法院和终审法院享有中止执行裁决以待上诉的独立权力，但两法院均没有限制一审法院中止其正在进行的诉讼程序的权力。《高等法院条例》第16(3)条以及《高等级法院规则》第1B 章第1(2)(e)条规则实际上赋予一审法院在认为合适时中止诉讼程序的法定权力。至于这些权力应在何时行使，Chan法官指出，一审法院必须考虑在这种情况下对各方公平公正的是什么。

Chan法官认为，在等待终审法院就是否准予上诉作出裁定时，因临时中止引起的任何延期不会对Xinjingd造成实质偏见，因为Xinjingd自意识到Eton重组到提起损害赔偿索赔已等了十年。因此，一审法院准予中止程序。

评论

如当事人不履行仲裁裁决条款，其可能违反普通法的默示承诺。这一违约构成香港法院可授予一系列救济的诉因，即使这些救济可能与原仲裁裁决的规定不同。因此，在通过传统的法定程序执行原裁决变得不可能时，该普通法诉讼为受害方提供了另一种途径。这些诉讼程序也确认一审法院享有中止其诉讼程序的法定权力，前提是该中止在所有情况下均公平公正。

 

原文：

HONG KONG COURT OF APPEAL: COMMON LAW ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO ENFORCE ARBITRAL AWARDS

By Kathryn Sanger

Two key developments emerge from the long-running proceedings in Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co Ltd v Eton Properties Ltd [2016] 2 HKLRD 1106 and Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co Ltd v Eton Properties [2018] HKCFI 910. The Hong Kong Court of Appeal (CA) has held that, when parties enter into an arbitration agreement, they make an implied promise that they will honour the terms of any subsequent arbitral award. If one party fails to honour the award, this may give rise to a separate cause of action at common law, for which the Hong Kong courts have jurisdiction to grant a full range of remedies, including damages. These proceedings also confirm that the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (CFI) has statutory powers to stay proceedings before it, pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal to the higher courts.

Background

In 2003 Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co Ltd entered into an agreement with Eton Properties Ltd to develop a piece of land in Xiamen, China. This land was owned by Xiamen Legend, which was held by Hong Kong Legend, whose shares were held by Eton.

 

Under the agreement, Xiamen was to pay Eton RMB120 million for possession of the land, on which Xiamen would build and then sell apartment blocks. Eton was then to transfer its shares in Hong Kong Legend to Xiamen.

 

However, before the shares of Hong Kong Legend were transferred to Xiamen, Eton purported to terminate the agreement. Xiamen Legend subsequently developed the land itself, building and selling the apartment blocks.

 

The agreement contained a CIETAC arbitration clause, which provided for Chinese governing law and a Beijing seat.

CIETAC arbitration

In 2006, a CIETAC arbitral tribunal issued an award in favour of Xiamen. The award ordered Eton to pay damages of RMB1,275,000 in respect of its late delivery of the land, and to “perform its obligations” under the agreement by completing the transfer of shares from Hong Kong Legend to Xiamen. However, Xiamen and the Tribunal were unaware that, during the arbitration, Eton had commenced a restructuring process, in which its holdings were diluted. This made any prospect of the share transfer pursuant to the agreement impossible, thus rendering the Tribunal’s order for continued performance nugatory.

 

Xiamen subsequently applied to the Xiamen courts to enforce the award, but the Xiamen Municipal Intermediate Court dismissed the application, on grounds that included the fact that Hong Kong Legend’s assets were outside the Chinese court’s jurisdiction. Xiamen therefore sought to enforce the award in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong proceedings

 

Hong Kong Court of First Instance

 

Statutory enforcement

 

The CFI recognised the award under Hong Kong’s old Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341) and issued an enforcement order. However, the order lacked practical effect due to Eton’s restructuring. Consequently, Xiamen commenced further proceedings in the Hong Kong courts against Eton and nine other defendants who were companies or individuals associated with Eton.

 

Common law action

 

Xiamen brought a common law action on the award, which consisted of two sub-actions. First, Xiamen used the CFI’s enforcement order to seek damages from Eton in lieu of the continued performance ordered in the award. Second, Xiamen brought original actions against all the defendants on the grounds that they had conspired to restructure Eton in order to avoid carrying out the agreement. The CFI dismissed Xiamen’s application and Xiamen appealed.

 

Hong Kong Court of Appeal

 

The CA held that when parties enter into an arbitration agreement, they make an implied promise that they will honour any subsequent arbitral award. Eton’s failure to honour the award constituted a breach of the implied promise which had, in turn, led to Xiamen suffering loss. This gave rise to a separate cause of action, for which the appropriate remedy could include damages.

 

The CA outlined three criteria that a plaintiff must meet in order to rely on this cause of action. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that there has been a valid submission of the dispute to arbitration. Second, there must be an award rendered in favour of the plaintiff. Third, the defendant must have failed to honour the award. Here, the CA found that Xiamen met all three criteria.

 

The CA also held that it had power at common law to order Eton to pay damages. In contrast to the statutory enforcement process, the common law permits a court to grant an order from a range of remedies – including damages – even when the arbitral tribunal has not done so.

 

The party seeking enforcement must elect one of the two remedies.

 

Hong Kong Court of First Instance: application to stay proceedings

 

In May 2016, both parties applied for leave to appeal to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA). In November 2017, Xiamen applied for directions regarding further conduct of the proceedings. In December 2017, Eton applied to the CFI for the proceedings to be stayed until the parties’ application for leave to appeal to the CFA was determined.

 

Xiamen argued that it was inappropriate for the CFI to stay the proceedings and that only the CA or the CFA were permitted to stay execution of the CA judgment and the order. Xiamen argued that, in cases where a judgment does not require the payment of money or performance of a duty (per Section 26 of the CFA Ordinance), only the CA and CFA have implied powers to grant an interim stay of execution pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal to the CFA, as well as having inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution pending appeal. Xiamen argued that the application to stay proceedings in this circumstance was an application for stay of execution.

 

The CFI found that, in the present circumstances, there was indeed no order for payment of any amount by Eton to Xiamen, only an order for damages to be assessed. However, there was found to be no “execution” of a judgment pending appeal which Eton sought to stay. Accordingly, the CFI did not accept Xiamen’s argument that the CA and CFA were the only courts permitted to stay the proceedings. The CFI was itself permitted to grant an interim stay of the proceedings.

 

In elucidating the CFI’s position, Chan J noted that, while the CA and CFA have independent powers to stay execution of a judgment pending appeal, neither court has limited the power of the CFI to stay proceedings which take place before it. Section 16(3) of the High Court Ordinance and Order 1B, Rule 1(2)(e) of the Rules of the High Court in fact provide the CFI with statutory powers to stay proceedings until a later time, where it thinks fit to do so. As to when these powers should be invoked, Chan J noted the CFI must consider what is fair and just towards the parties in the circumstances.

 

Chan J found that any delay caused by an interim stay pending determination of the application for leave to the CFA would not cause substantial prejudice to Xiamen, given Xiamen had already waited ten years after becoming aware of Eton’s restructure to pursue its claim for damages. Accordingly, the CFI granted the stay.

Comment

 

If parties fail to honour the terms of an arbitral award, they may breach their implied promise at common law. This breach constitutes a cause of action for which the Hong Kong courts may grant a range of remedies, even though these remedies may differ from those provided in the original arbitral award. This common law action therefore provides aggrieved parties with an alternative avenue, when enforcement of the original award (through the traditional statutory process) becomes impossible. These proceedings also confirm the CFI’s statutory power to stay proceedings before it, provided the stay is fair and just in all the circumstances.