ICCA国际仲裁第三方资助(TPF)报告：第6章 费用及费用担保 (1)

更新时间：2018-08-16 10:31:20  临时仲裁 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：3766次

第6章 费用及费用担保 (1)

 

PRINCIPLES原则

Principles on Final Award (Allocation) of Costs终局裁决费用的（分摊）原则

C.1. Generally, at the end of an arbitration, recovery of costs should not be denied on the basis that a party seeking costs is funded by a third-party funder.

C.2.When recovery of costs is limited to costs which have been “incurred” or “directly incurred”, the obligation of a party to reimburse the funder in the event of a successful outcome is generally sufficient for a tribunal to find that the costs of a funded party comes within that limitation.

C.3.The question of whether any of the cost of funding, including a third-party funder’s return, is recoverable as costs will depend on the definition of recoverable costs in the applicable national legislation and/or procedural rules, but generally should be subject to the test of reasonableness and disclosure of details of such funding costs from the outset of or during the arbitration so that the other party can assess its exposure.

C.4.In the absence of an express power, in applicable national legislation or  procedural rules, a tribunal would lack jurisdiction to issue a costs order against a third-party funder.

C.1. 通常情况下，仲裁结束时，不得基于一方当事人请求支付的费用已得到第三方资助为由拒绝补偿费用(recovery for costs)。

C.2. 当费用的补偿仅限于“已发生”或“已直接发生”的费用时，若一方当事人在胜诉时有义务偿还资助者，仲裁庭通常足以认定受助者的费用在该限制范围之内。

C.3. 包括第三方资助者的回报在内的任何资助费用是否可得到补偿，将取决于适用的国家立法和/或程序规则对可补偿费用的定义，但通常应在仲裁开始或期间对此类资助费用的细节进行合理性测试和披露，以便另一方当事人能对风险敞口进行评估。

C.4. 若所适用的国家立法和程序规则中均无明确授权，冲裁庭无权向第三方资助者签发支付令。

Security for Costs费用担保

D.1. An application for security for costs should, in the first instance, be determined on the basis of the applicable test, without regard to the existence of any funding arrangement.

D.2. The terms of any funding arrangement, including ATE, may be relevant if relied upon to establish that the claimant (or counterclaimant) can meet any adverse costs award (including, in particular, the funder's termination rights).

D.3. In the event that security turns out not to have been necessary, the tribunal may hold the requesting party  liable for the reasonable costs of posting such security.

D. 1. 费用担保的申请首先应根据所适用的检验标准来决定，而不考虑是否存在任何资助协议。

D. 2. 包括ATE在内的任何资助协议条款都可能相关，如果依据该条款可以确定申请人（或反请求申请人）能够应对任何不利的费用裁决（尤其包括资助者的终止权）。

D. 3. 如果担保被证明没有必要，仲裁庭可要求申请人对申请担保的合理费用承担责任。

I. Introduction介绍

The purpose of this Chapter is to provide guidance regarding the impact of third-party funding on allocation of costs and applications for security for costs. The analysis in this Chapter focuses on non-recourse funding arrangements. Where relevant, however, ATE, BTE and contingency fee arrangements are discussed for purposes of comparison.

本章旨在就第三方资助对费用分摊和费用担保申请的影响提供指引。本章分析关注无追索权的资助安排，但在相关部分，ATE、BTE和风险代理收费安排将作为比较进行讨论。

It should be noted from the outset that the principles articulated in this Chapter are not intended to articulate a normative position; rather, they reflect the current state of the law that emerges from review of cases and scholarly commentary. Policy considerations are of course included in the analysis of this Chapter, but they are developed in more detail in Chapter 8, especially for investment arbitration. In this respect, sections of this Chapter that discuss issues in the context of investment arbitration should be read together with the policy analysis in Chapter 8.

从一开始就应指出，本章阐述的原则并非旨在阐明一个规范性立场，而在于反映案件审查和学术评论所呈现的法律现状。政策考虑因素当然包括在本章的分析中，但将在第8章进行更详细的分析，尤其在投资仲裁方面。为此，本章中讨论投资仲裁问题的章节应与第8章的政策分析结合起来解读。

The Chapter first examines issues on awarding of costs, and then issues on security for costs applications. Unless a tribunal establishes the likelihood that costs could in principle be awarded against an unsuccessful claimant, it cannot make a decision on a security for costs application.[1]

本章首先讨论有关费用裁决的问题，然后讨论有关费用担保申请的问题。除非仲裁庭认为在索赔失败时，仲裁费用原则上由申请人承担，否则该仲裁庭不能对费用担保的申请作出裁决。

In respect of third-party funding, four principal questions arise and are addressed below:

(1) Should third-party funding affect the recoverability of its legal costs by the successful claimant?

(2) Should the costs of funding be recoverable?

(3) Can the third-party funder be ordered to contribute to the costs of the successful respondent?

(4) How should third-party funding affect the ordering of security for costs?  

关于第三方资助，产生如下四个主要问题：

1. 第三方资助是否应当影响胜诉申请人对法律费用的补偿？

2. 资助费用是否应得到补偿？

3. 第三方资助者是否可以被命令对胜诉被申请人的费用进行补偿？

4、第三方资助应如何影响费用担保裁定？

II. Awarding of Costs费用的授予

When asked to make an award of costs at the end of the proceedings, an arbitral tribunal has to address a number of issues. First, the tribunal must decide whether it can and should reallocate costs and on what basis (e.g., costs follow the event). Second, if it decides to make a costs award against the unsuccessful party, the tribunal must determine which of the prevailing party’s costs are recoverable from the other side, including the type and amount of recoverable costs (i.e., (i) tribunal/institution costs and/or (ii) parties' legal and other costs). Third, the tribunal must determine which and how much of those costs should be awarded against the unsuccessful party in the circumstances.

在仲裁程序结束并裁定仲裁费用时，仲裁庭必须先处理一些问题。第一，它必须决定是否应重新分摊费用以及依据（例如，根据结果裁定费用）；第二，如果决定作出不利于败诉方的费用裁决，仲裁庭必须确定胜诉方的哪些费用可以从另一方补偿，包括可补偿费用的种类和数额（即 (i) 仲裁庭/机构费用和/或 (ii) 当事人的法律费用和其他费用）；第三，在这种情况下，仲裁庭必须裁定应由败诉方支付的费用及金额。

An arbitral tribunal’s decisions on these issues will generally be framed by the applicable arbitral laws and rules [A], but are often informed by litigation practice [B]. Below some arbitral practices in relation to third-party funding are summarised [C]. Finally, key observations and suggestions are set out [D].

仲裁庭对这些事项的裁定将根据适用的仲裁法律和规则作出[A]，但通常通过诉讼实践来通知[B]。以下是关于第三方资助的一些仲裁实践的总结[C]。最后，提出了主要意见和建议[D]。

A. Arbitral Laws and Rules仲裁法律和规则

1. Arbitral Laws仲裁法律

As the award of costs originates from English law and practice, that is a useful place to begin.

由于费用裁决源于英国的法律和实践，这是一个很有用的起点。

English arbitration law contains comparatively detailed provisions on costs allocation. Section 61 English Arbitration Act 1996 provides that:

“(1) The tribunal may make an award allocating the costs of the arbitration as between the parties, subject to any agreement of the parties.

(2) Unless the parties otherwise agree, the tribunal shall award costs on the general principle that costs should follow the event except where it appears to the tribunal that in the circumstances this is not appropriate in relation to the whole or part of the costs.”

英国仲裁法对费用分担有较为详细的规定。《1996英国仲裁法》第61条规定：

“(1) 在不违背当事人约定的前提下，仲裁庭可在当事人之间裁决仲裁费用的分担。

(2) 除非当事人另有约定，仲裁庭应裁决承担仲裁费用的一般原则是：仲裁费用的承担应符合案件结果，除非仲裁庭认为，根据具体情况，一方当事人承担全部或部分仲裁费用是不合适的。”

As regards the amount of recoverable costs, Section 63 English Arbitration Act 1996 states:

“(3) The tribunal may determine by award the recoverable costs of the arbitration on such basis as it thinks fit.

If it does so, it shall specify –

(a) the basis on which it has acted, and

(b) the items of recoverable costs and the amount referable to each.

关于可补偿费用的数额，《1996英国仲裁法》第63条规定：

“(3) 仲裁庭如认为适当，可以裁决形式确定可补偿的仲裁费用。

如仲裁庭如此行事，则应具体写明：

(a) 确定之依据，以及

(b) 可补偿仲裁费用的项目及各项数额。

(4) If the tribunal does not determine the recoverable costs of the arbitration, any party to the arbitral proceedings may apply to the court (upon notice to the other parties) which may –

(a) determine the recoverable costs of the arbitration on such basis as it thinks fit, or

(b) order that they shall be determined by such means and upon such terms as it may specify.

(4) 如果仲裁庭未确定可补偿的仲裁费用，仲裁程序的任一方当事人（经通知其他当事人）可向法院提出申请，法院可以：

(a) 以其认为合适的理由，判决可补偿的仲裁费用，或

(b) 命令应以法院规定的方式和条件予以确定。

(5) Unless the tribunal or the court determines otherwise –

(a) the recoverable costs of the arbitration shall be determined on the basis that there shall be allowed a reasonable amount in respect of all costs reasonably incurred, and

(b) any doubt as to whether costs were reasonably incurred or were reasonable in amount shall be resolved in favour of the paying party.”

(5) 除非仲裁庭或法院另有决定：

(a) 就所有合理产生的仲裁费用应允许合理增减，在此基础上确定可补偿之仲裁费用，并且

(b) 对于该仲裁费用的产生及数额是否合理的怀疑，其解决应有利于支付方当事人。”

Default rules on costs shifting can also be found in the arbitration laws of other common law systems such as Hong Kong, [2]as well civil law systems such as Germany, Spain, Brazil and Portugal.[3]  

费用转移的缺席裁决在普通法系如香港和大陆法系如德国、西班牙、巴西和葡萄牙的仲裁法中也可以找到。

While jurisdictions that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law (or close to it), such as France, Switzerland, and the United States, are silent on the issue of costs allocation, it is generally understood that tribunals sitting in these jurisdictions have the power to render awards on costs.[4]  

尽管已采纳《UNCITRAL示范法》（或相似制度）的司法辖区如法国、瑞士和美国的仲裁法都未提及费用分摊问题，但普遍认为，这些司法辖区的仲裁庭有权对费用作出裁决。

No national arbitration laws of which the Task Force is aware include substantive provisions regarding the effect of third-party funding on cost awards.

工作组所了解的国家仲裁法均未包括关于第三方资助对费用裁决影响的实质性规定。

2. Arbitral Rules仲裁规则

Many widely used arbitral rules also provide for the award of costs and for cost shifting and set a presumption that costs should follow the event, or should be allocated based on the degree of success, unless particular circumstances call for a different approach.[5] Other rules simply provide for wide arbitrator discretion.[6]

许多广泛使用的仲裁规则还规定费用裁决和费用转移，并推定费用应遵循案件结果或根据胜诉程度进行分摊，除非特殊情况需采用不同方法。其他规则仅规定仲裁员的广泛自由裁量权。

The UNCITRAL Rules are representative. Article 40(1) provides that the arbitral tribunal shall fix the costs of arbitration in the final award and, if it deems appropriate, in another decision. Article 42 then provides:

《联合国贸易法委员会仲裁规则》具有代表性。该规则第40 (1)条规定，仲裁庭应在最终裁决书中并在其认为适当的其他任何决定中确定仲裁费用。第42条规定：

“1. The costs of the arbitration shall in principle be borne by the unsuccessful party or parties. However, the arbitral tribunal may apportion each of such costs between the parties if it determines that apportionment is reasonable, taking into account the circumstances of the case.

2. The arbitral tribunal shall in the final award or, if it deems appropriate, in any other award, determine any amount that a party may have to pay to another party as a result of the decision on allocation of costs.”

“1. 仲裁费用原则上应由败诉一方或败诉各方负担，但是，仲裁庭考虑到案件具体情况，认为分摊费用合理的，仲裁庭可裁决在当事人之间分摊每一项此种费用。

2. 仲裁庭应在最终裁决书中，或者在其认为适当的其他任何裁决中，裁决一方当事人须根据费用分摊决定向另一方当事人支付的任何数额。”

Similar formulations can be found, for instance, in the ICC Rules,[7] the LCIA Rules,[8] and the CIETAC Rules.[9]

其他规则中也有类似规定，如《ICC规则》、《LCIA规则》和《CIETAC规则》。

The only provision in arbitral rules that specifically address the issue of third-party funding with respect to costs awards is Article 35 of the 2017 SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules, which provide:

在仲裁规则中，专门处理费用裁决方面的第三方资助问题的唯一条款是《2017SIAC投资仲裁规则》第35条，其中规定：

“The Tribunal shall have the authority to order in its Award that all or a part of the legal or other costs of a Party be paid by another Party. The Tribunal may take into account any third-party funding arrangements in ordering in its Award that all or a part of the legal or other costs of a Party be paid by another Party.”

“仲裁庭有权在其裁决书中裁定，一方当事人的全部或部分法律费用或其他费用由另一方当事人承担。仲裁庭在其裁决书中裁定一方当事人的全部或部分法律费用或其他费用由另一方当事人承担时，可考虑任何第三方资助安排。”

B. Litigation Practice诉讼实践

Given that the award and allocation of costs has it genesis in court practice, especially in common law jurisdictions, for comparative purposes, this section provides a brief overview of the status of recoverability of funding costs in litigation in some of the most popular jurisdictions for international litigation.

鉴于费用裁决和费用分摊产生于法院实践，尤其在普通法辖区，为便于比较，本节将对国际诉讼中最受欢迎的司法辖区的诉讼费用资助的补偿情况进行简要概述。

In England and Wales, conditional fees and the premium for ATE insurance were made recoverable under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 as amended by the Access to Justice Act 1999. Section 58A(6) stated that costs orders made in any proceedings might include success fees. Section 58A(4) made it clear that the term ‘proceedings’ included arbitration proceedings. Section 29 Access to Justice Act 1999 provided that ‘[w]here in any proceedings a costs order is made in favour of any party who has taken out an insurance policy against the risk of incurring a liability in those proceedings, the costs payable to him may, subject in the case of court proceedings to rules of court, include costs in respect of the premium of the policy.’ The success fee element could only be based on fees incurred after the conditional fee agreement had been disclosed to the other side. This regime was subsequently changed with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which abolished the recoverability of conditional fees and ATE insurance premiums for agreements entered into after 1 April 2013, on the ground that such premiums and fees were key drivers behind the escalating costs of civil litigation.

根据《1999年司法救济法》（Access to Justice Act 1999）而修订的《英国和威尔士法院和法律服务法》规定，英国和威尔士的附条件费用和事后保险费可得到补偿。《1999年司法救济法》第58A（6）条明确规定，任何诉讼中的费用支付令都可以包括成功费用；第58A（4）条规定，“程序”包括仲裁程序；《1999年司法救济法》第29条规定：“在任何程序所作的费用裁决对任意一方当事人有利时，若该当事人已经对这些程序产生的责任风险进行投保，根据诉讼程序的裁定支付给该当事人的费用应包括相关保险费。”上述规定随后被《2012违规行为的法律援助、审判和惩罚法》所改变，该法废除对按条件收费和ATE保险（2013年4月1日以后订立的协议）的补偿，其理由是这种保费或费用是民事诉讼费用不断攀升的主要驱动因素。

Section 58B also permitted litigation funding agreements and provided that a costs order made in any proceedings may, subject in the case of court proceedings to rules of court, include provision requiring the payment of any amount payable under a litigation funding agreement. This provision was unaffected by the 2012 reforms.

第58B 条允许诉讼资助协议，并规定，在任何诉讼程序中作出的费用命令，根据案件诉讼程序的法院规则，可包括要求按诉讼资助协议支付任何金额的规定。该规定不受2012改革的影响。

In the United States – where parties typically bear their own costs – the Supreme Court has clarified that if a federal fee shifting statute applies and the prevailing party seeks to recover its contingency fees, only reasonable hourly fees (lodestar-method) are recoverable.[10]

在美国，当事人通常各自承担费用，最高法院已经澄清，若适用联邦费用转移法令且胜诉方请求补偿其风险代理费，只有合理的计时收费（原则方法）可得到补偿。

In Germany, interest charged on a loan used to pay litigation expenses is not recoverable under section 91 German Code of Civil Procedure, since the interest cost is not directly related to the conduct of the proceedings.[11] Accordingly, recovery of other funding costs (such as an ATE insurance premium) would likely be impossible from the perspective of German procedural law.

在德国，根据《德国民事诉讼法》第91条，为支付诉讼费用进行贷款所产生的利息不能得到补偿，因为利息费用与程序无直接关联。因此，对其他资助费用的补偿（如ATE保险费）根据德国程序法不太可能得到补偿。

As regards the question of whether a third-party funder may be ordered to pay adverse costs should the funded claim fail, there is judicial authority from the UK[12] and the US[13] to the effect that costs can be awarded against third-party funders if they have obtained a sufficient degree of economic interest and control in relation to the claim.

至于第三方资助者在受助索赔失败时是否可以被裁令支付不利费用，英国和美国都有案例显示，大意是若资助者能在索赔中获得足够的经济利益并达到足够的控制程度，仲裁庭可以裁定资助者支付费用。