国产视频一区三区_久久久精品性_在线精品一区_欧美在线视频二区_国产精品一区在线观看_精品不卡视频_欧美亚洲免费高清在线观看_欧美视频久久_国产精品一区毛片_国产日韩一区

執行國際仲裁裁決 “既判爭點禁反言”（Issue Estoppel）的應用與爭議（第一部分）

2017年第08期    作者:李靄明    閱讀 11,685 次

簡言

1.隨著中國經濟的持續發展，內地企業趨于國際化。而海外企業進駐內地的例子亦如恒河沙數。當中因各種原因而產生的貿易糾紛變得普遍。可是，把事件訴諸法庭往往有可能對合作關系造成進一步的影響，對企業形象難免有一定程度的損害。基于仲裁的保密特質，其漸漸成為被企業接受的解決貿易紛爭的一個常用方法。

2.當仲裁中的一方成功獲得裁決，接著一定是希望能盡快取得裁決所衍生的實質成果。但由于敗方的有價值資產可能遍布世界各地，仲裁裁決的執行往往變成一件不直截了當的事情。

3.中國是《承認及執行外國仲裁裁決公約》（1958年，紐約）(下稱為「《紐約公約》」) 的簽訂國。 《紐約公約》中的第五條規定，在一個成員國領土內作出的仲裁裁決，另一成員國法院只能運用酌情權以有限的理由，包括第五條所列舉的，拒絕承認或執行該仲裁裁決。

4.然而，隨著法理的發展，各地國家法院因各種原因而拒絕執行仲裁裁決已變得不罕見。其中，因英國備受爭議的案例 Diag Human SE v Czech Republic [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm) 于 2014 年的出現 (案例的詳細說明請見本文的第二部份)，國際仲裁亦更關注以普通法「既判爭點禁反言」為依據抵抗裁決執行的情況。本文旨在對此既重要且務實的問題作深入探討，并以不同普通法國家的案例為例子作進一步說明討論。

“既判爭點禁反言”原則

5.“既判爭點禁反言”是一個已被確立及被英國法院采納已久的普通法原則。其意指如達到以下列舉的條件，與訟雙方均不能在往后任何訴訟中再爭議同一個已被早前法院審理的議題：

(1)        先前的判決必須由具有管轄權的法院提出;

(2)        先前的判決必須是最終和具決定性的 (final and conclusive) 及基于案情審訂 (on the merits) 的;

(3)        訴訟各方必須相同;

(4)        議題必須相同，即先前法院決定的問題必須與后來訴訟中需審理的問題相同。

(見 Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (no 2) [1967] 1 AC 853)

“既判爭點禁反言”在仲裁裁決執行訴訟 (Enforcement Proceedings) 中的應用

英國

6.一般而言，英國法院認為仲裁地法院 (Courts at the seat of arbitration) 對仲裁裁決的執行性或有效性所作出的判決在往后的執行訴訟中有排他性作用。如在 Gater Assets Ltd v NAK Naftogaz Ukrainiy [2008] EWHC 237 (Comm) 的第三段中法庭指出:

 

“… Mr Higham QC for the Defendant did formally keep open an argument to the effect that relief was available under section 103(2)(d) on the basis that the arbitration tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.  However this point has already twice been decided against the Defendant by the competent Russian supervisory courts.  There can be no prospect of the Defendant escaping the preclusive effect of such determinations unless it succeeds in its argument rooted in public policy and moreover in a manner relevant to the finding that the arbitration tribunal enjoyed jurisdiction.”

7.可是，英國法院會如何看待仲裁地以外法院的執行判決于當地的影響力則還未被厘清確定。但從案例的發展可見，在關于仲裁裁決的執行訴訟中，英國法院愿意考慮甚至接受以「既判爭點禁反言」為基礎提出的論據。而 Good Challenger Navegante SA v Metalexportimport SA [2003] EWCA Civ 1668 是一個較早期出現的關于以「既判爭點禁反言」為論點嘗試說服英國法庭接納仲裁地以外法院對仲裁裁決執行作的判決的具代表性的案例。

8.在1983年，Good Challenger 公司在一個倫敦仲裁中獲得了針對 Metalimportexport 公司的裁決。

9.在1992年，Good Challenger 公司于羅馬尼亞尋求仲裁裁決的執行及認可并獲得 布加勒斯特市法院允許。 Metalimportexport 公司申請上訴，上訴庭雖維持裁決認可的判決，但卻以裁決的執行在英國法律下已過時限為由推翻執行。此時限問題被爭議至羅馬尼亞最高法院。最終該最高法院于 1998 年裁定維持上訴庭判決。

10.與此同時，在 1993年，Good Challenger公司于英國尋求裁決的執行并獲 Saville 法官批出執行許可（leave to enforce）。可是，Good Challenger公司并沒有在最新的英國民事程序規則生效前把Saville法官的執行準許命令派送給Metalimportexport公司，因此該命令在當時英國法律下被自動暫停有效 (automatically stayed)。 2001 年，英國法院解除對該命令的暫停。

11.2003 年，英國法院再次對 Good Challenger 公司獲得的仲裁裁決批出執行許可 。本案正是處理此 2003 年判決的上訴聆訊。上訴的爭議在于羅馬尼亞最高法院指裁決的執行在英國法律下已過時限的判決是否構成「既判爭點禁反言」以使Good Challenger 公司不能就同一議題在英國法庭作爭議因此仲裁裁決不能在英國被執行。

12.本案不爭議的是時限問題關系于羅馬尼亞法律第 105/1992 號第 174(a) 及 (b) 條有關執行外國判決 (即相關的仲裁裁決) 的條文的運用。英國上訴庭認為就某一外國判決能否于羅馬尼亞執行，第 174(a) 條涉及對相關英國法律的考慮 (即相關的外國法律)，而第174(b) 條則關于對羅馬尼亞當地法律的考慮。雖然如此，英國上訴庭認為羅馬尼亞最高法院是不須分別就第 174(a) 及 (b) 條作出判決才能得出相關仲裁裁決能否在羅馬尼亞被執行的結論，只要裁定第 174(a) 或 (b) 條其中一條的結論是不被執行便已足夠達至本案的判決結果。見第六十四段之原文:

 

“…this case is somewhat different from that described by Coleridge J because, in order to conclude that the award was not enforceable in Romania, the Supreme Court did not have to decide both the issue of Romanian law under Article 174(b) and the issue of English law under Article 174(a).  A decision on either limb would have sufficed.  It would only have had to decide both points in order to hold that the award was enforceable in Romania.  That can be seen by the decisions of the Municipal Court and of the Court of Appeal, each of which decided only the Romanian law point under Article 174(b).”

 

13.本案例接納“既判爭點禁反言”原則在英國的仲裁裁決執行訴訟中本質上是能夠適用的。但經仔細研究羅馬尼亞最高法院的判詞后，英國上訴庭認為羅馬尼亞最高法院就時限問題的判決只是就羅馬尼亞第 174(b) 條關于羅馬尼亞法律的運用作出的。就第 174(a) 條關于相關的英國法律，判詞中只有一段有限的討論，這明顯不構成該判決的主要依據，對判決而言只屬附屬及附帶意見性質(merely collateral or obiter) 。因此，關于第 174(a) 條的決定就整個判決來說是非必要的亦不具決定性的。因此，英國上訴庭作為仲裁地法院裁定“既判爭點禁反言”不能于此案被成立。當中法官在判詞中有以下的說法:

 

“84. It seems to me that on a fair reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court the primary basis for its decision was the view which it formed under Article 174(b) that the claim was time barred under Romanian law.  That was sufficient to decide the case in favour of the charterers and, in particular, to dismiss the appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had decided the matter solely on the Romanian law point. 

85. By contrast, the judgment contains no reasons why the court rejected the owners’ submission that the six year period had been extended by the part payments and the acknowledgments.  It is of course possible that the court rejected the evidence relied upon by the owners as inadmissible but, if it did, it did not say so.  It might be said that the court rejected the part payments on the basis that the dates of the payments “were not even proved to be related to the amounts” of the award, but no such submission could be made with regard to the alleged acknowledgment in the telex of 17 March 1988, which, as stated in paragraph 18 above, would have been sufficient to extend the period to a date after 27 May 1992.  The reader of the judgment is left to speculate as to the reasons which led the court to reach the conclusion it did.

86. I agree with the judge that that is a pointer to the conclusion that this was a secondary or collateral or obiter reason for the decision.  In any event, it is far from clear whether the court was treating the Article 174(a) point as an equal ground for its decision to dismiss the appeal and, given the caution which the cases show should be used in deciding questions of this kind, for my part I would not hold that the charterers have shown that the determination of the Article 174(a) point was central to the decision and not collateral to it.

…

89. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether, if the other ingredients of issue estoppel were present it would be appropriate to hold that there are here special circumstances which would make it unjust to hold the owners to be issue estopped from arguing that the claim was not time barred in January 1993.  It appears to me that the lack of clarity as to the role played by the Article 174(a) point in the reasoning and decision of the Supreme Court leads to the conclusion that it would be unjust to the owners to hold that its decision gives rise to an issue estoppel.  It does not, however, do so by the application of what might be called the special circumstances exception but as a result of the conclusion that the charterers have not demonstrated that the determination of the Article 174(a) point was necessary to the decision as opposed to collateral to it.”

 

14.  從以上較早期的案例可見，在裁定「既判爭點禁反言」是否適用以接納仲裁地以外法院對仲裁裁決執行的判決，英國法庭會對外國法院就有關執行仲裁裁決議題上的討論作十分深入地分析。可見英國法庭對以此原則推反仲裁裁決于英國的執行持相對審慎的態度。

 

李靄明

香港執業大律師, 獲香港中文大學法學頒授法律學位（JD）及英國劍橋大學法學碩士。

業務方向：商業及公司法，土地法，遺產法及公法等，亦為國際仲裁中各方作代表律師。