仲裁早新聞：法院駁回當事人以違反自然公平原則爲由撤銷仲裁裁決申請（新加坡案）
2020年7月21日，在CDM and others v CDP [2020] SGHC 141一案中，原告以仲裁裁決超出管轄權、裁決違反自然公正原則爲由，申請中止執行並撤銷仲裁裁決。新加坡高等法院認爲，原告在會議記錄中認可了合同所約定的付款條件，但實際卻拒絕付款，其主張前後矛盾，原告拒絕付款的做法不合理。另外，原告在反請求答辯中的內容涉及仲裁爭議事項。法院據此認爲裁決並未超越管轄事項，故駁回了該申請。
一、案情介紹
原告CDM、CDN與CDO是新加坡公司，被告CDP是一家中國的建築公司。CDM與CDN作爲發包人分別與承包人CDP簽訂了設計建造一套鑽井設備合同（以下簡稱：X）和井架設備的合同（以下簡稱：Y）。CDO是兩發包人的控股公司，爲上述工程合同的履行分別向CDP提供了兩份擔保（以下分別簡稱：X擔保、Y擔保）。
雙方就上述合同的履行以及第四期款項的支付産生爭議。原告認爲合同補充條款2第6項第四期款項支付的前提是被告已獲得其批准安排設備下水。被告則主張合同第四期款項已經具備付款條件，向原告主張付款。雙方向新加坡國際仲裁中心提起仲裁與反請求。仲裁庭作出了對被告有利的最終裁決。
原告就裁決涉及X合同的部分有異議，以仲裁裁決超超出管轄權、裁決違反自然公正原則爲由，向法院提交中止執行申請，並在OS 1307/2019原訴傳票申請中申請撤銷仲裁裁決。被告則向法院提交OS 1124/2019原訴傳票，申請執行該裁決。
二、法院認定
首先，法院從程序角度認爲，原告提出的中止執行申請，又提出該申請和OS 1307/2019案件一並審理，上述中止申請本應在OS 1307/2019案庭審之前或庭審中提出，但原告並未這樣做。法院認爲原告的上述申請只是爲了拖延執行程序。因此，法院並未支持其中止執行的申請。（Finally, as highlighted at [30] above, the Plaintiffs had agreed for the Stay Application and OS 1307/2019 to be heard together. The Plaintiffs did not request for the hearing of the Stay Application to be brought forward and heard before the hearing of OS 1307/2019. This was, in my view, indicative that there was little merit in the Stay Application and that it had been filed merely as a tactical move to try and stall the enforcement proceedings instituted by the Defendant. For the foregoing reasons, I dismissed the Stay Application.）
其次，法院就原告在OS1307/2019案的兩項主張，分析撤銷仲裁裁決的必要性。
1、仲裁裁決未超越仲裁庭管轄權
原告認爲雖然仲裁庭認定原告于2015年4月28日批准X合同的標的物第一次下水這便滿足了被告在同年5月3日的下水前具備的先決條件，然而，該時間並非被告在仲裁中所主張的2015年1月20日這個時間節點。仲裁庭的裁決是對先發生的事情産生了溯及力，這是原告不予認可的。對于以上主張，法院不予認可。
法院認爲，原被告雙方都意識到本案的關鍵事實是原告是否批准下水，這是合同補充條款2第6項第四期款項支付的條件。雖然被告僅從雙方簽訂的合同補充條款2第6項d的付款條件角度提出主張，但現有證據清楚表明，原告比被告更早知道第二次下水以及在此之前的施工和進度會議的相關性。因此法院認爲，原告是想從合同角度先發制人。（ This was despite the fact that in the Statement of Claim, the Defendant had only pleaded the first launch as part of its case on compliance with the conditions precedent in Article 6(d) of Contracts Addendum No. 2. This was, to my mind, a clear indication that the Plaintiffs were, from very early on, alive to the relevance of the second launch and the Construction and Progress Meetings that preceded it. Indeed, it appeared to me that the Plaintiffs were seeking to pre-empt the Defendant.）
原告在仲裁階段初期就意識到了2015年1月20日第一次下水的進度和建造會議以及第二次5月3日下水的相關性，因此仲裁庭認爲上述時間節點的爭議已經提交了仲裁庭，需要仲裁庭進行審理。（From the paragraphs in the SDC quoted above, it was apparent that the Plaintiffs themselves were alive, at a very early stage in the Arbitration, to the relevance and significance of the Construction and Progress Meetings following the first launch on 20 January 2015, and of the second launch on 3 May 2015. In proactively addressing those issues in the SDC, the Plaintiffs were, in my judgment, clearly aware that they were very much a central part of the dispute. By their own pleadings, the Plaintiffs had placed these issues in the arena. Therefore, based on just the SDC, it was clear to me that those issues were before the Tribunal and would need to be considered and decided by it.）
除此之外，原告無疑清楚2015年4月28日的會議和2015年5月3日的第二次下水的關聯性，因此雙方在向對方送達答辯狀時對有關第一次和第二次下水以及建造進度會議的劃定均已經明確列明。綜上所述，法院認爲仲裁庭有權就2015年5月3日第二次下水是否滿合同補充條款2第6項進行裁決。（the Plaintiffs were undoubtedly alive, not just to the relevance of the meeting on 28 April 2015 and the second launch on 3 May 2015, but to their contractual relevance as conditions precedent to be met by the Defendant under Article 6(d) of Contracts Addendum No. 2. Thus, by the time the parties had served all of their pleadings, the battle lines in relation to both the first and second launches and the Construction and Progress Meetings had been clearly drawn. Therefore, the Tribunal was in a position, legitimately, to decide whether the conditions precedent in Article 6(d) of Contracts Addendum No. 2were met prior to the second launch of Hull No. X on 3 May 2015.）
2、仲裁裁決未違反自然公正原則，未剝奪當事人的辯論權
雖然本案原告主張仲裁庭剝奪其辯論權，該行爲違反了自然公正原則。但法院認爲，原告清楚知悉被告的仲裁，有充分的機會作出回應，因此駁回了其請求。具體理由如下：
法院認爲，庭審中被申請人（本案原告）對申請人的證人進行了充分的交叉詢問。原告有足夠的機會在庭審中解決第一次會議以及第二次會議中關于下水的問題，而上述問題已在仲裁的爭議事項中列明。（Further, during the oral hearing, the Defendant’s counsel had cross- examined the Plaintiff’s witness on whether an agreement or understanding on the unresolved issues was reached on 28 April 2015.77 The Plaintiffs therefore had a clear opportunity to address the issues surrounding this meeting and the second launch during the evidentiary hearing. Those are as of contention had already been laid out in the parties’ pleadings and the ALOI）且仲裁庭對雙方爭議的焦點總結無誤，且處理方式得當。（On its part, the Tribunal met the parties’ competing arguments head-on and dealt with them as it was entitled to.）
法院認爲，當事方在請求與反請求以及庭審記錄期間的觀點都是仲裁庭調查的結果，也是裁決的組成部分。原告對被告的觀點清楚知悉，且知道下水施工會議的節點。（The Plaintiffs were sensitised to the Defendant’s arguments and were well aware where the battle lines lay in relation to both launches and the Construction and Progress Meetings.）且由于雙方均對爭議提交材料，仲裁庭已就上述證據進行了兩次審查。因此，仲裁庭無需在要求雙方提交進一步的意見。
法院進而就原告所主張的仲裁庭未允許原告就2015年1月20日第一次下水進行答辯，以及拒絕對原告提供的專家證人進行交叉詢問以就兩個主張進行論述。法院認爲，第一次下水的時間只是仲裁庭就案件事實進行的認定，並非仲裁裁決的主文。（This conclusion was, in my view, subsidiary to and not dispositive of the Tribunal’s decision.）至于原告提交的專家證人，其本有機會在庭上接受詢問。法院采納了被告的觀點認爲，備忘錄的結構就是要各方指定的專家就爭議中的每一個子問題進行權衡，顯然，原告提供的專家證人並沒有解決訴爭的合同附錄2第6條規定的條件是否成就這個問題。相反，他是按照指示對備忘錄中的每一個子問題作出回應。仲裁庭在指導原告律師進行質證時，並不是疏忽大意。在仲裁庭介入的時候，原告實際上是在要求其專家證人解釋合同附錄2。然而，解釋合同並非技術專家的責任。（I agreed with the Defendant’s submissions. Given the manner in which the Memo was structured, where each party’s appointed expert weighed in on each sub-issue in dispute, it was clear that Mr Burthem was not addressing the general question of whether the conditions set out in Article 6 of Contracts Addendum No. 2 were complied with. Rather, he was responding to each sub- issue in the Memo, as instructed. The Tribunal was not remiss in directing the Plaintiffs’ counsel, in his cross-examination, to keep to the sub-issues and within the remit of the Memo. At the point where the Tribunal intervened, the Plaintiff was, in effect, asking Mr Burthem to interpret Contracts Addendum No. 2. That was not Mr Burthem’s role as a technical expert.）因此，法院認爲，仲裁庭並沒有違反自然公正原則。
綜上所述，法院認爲，仲裁庭並不存在剝奪原告訴權的情形，原告的兩項申請理由不成立。因此，法院裁定駁回OS 1307/2019案撤銷仲裁裁決申請。
三、案評
仲裁事項超越管轄權是常見的申請撤銷仲裁裁決的理由之一。由于仲裁是基于雙方合意所形成的爭議解決形式，因此，任意一方請求仲裁的基礎便是雙方就仲裁事項進行約定。通常的超裁包括兩種情形，一種是裁決超出仲裁協議約定的範圍，另一種是仲裁事項雖是雙方約定，但並非當事人主張的請求事項。本案的原告的請求便與第二種相似。
新加坡高等法院判斷仲裁超裁的依據是判例Sui Southern Gas Co Ltd v Habibullah Coastal Power Co (Pte) Ltd[2010] 3 SLR 1 at [34]，根據該案，超裁的認定標准有兩項：（1）是否屬于提交仲裁庭審理的事項，以及（2）仲裁裁決是否涉及這類事項，或者是否是一個本來與仲裁庭待決事項不相關的新的爭議。（(a) the matters which were within the scope of submission to the arbitral tribunal; and (b) whether the arbitral award (or the part being impugned) involved such matters, or whether it was a new difference which would have been irrelevant to the issues requiring determination by the arbitral tribunal.）本案法院並未支持原告主張，主要是由于仲裁階段雙方均提交的材料與爭議的時間點有關，當事人對一個進行了主張，另外幾個關鍵時間點也都會有所涉及，因此不是一個新的主張，不應獨立解決。
關于仲裁庭是否剝奪當事人訴權，違反自然公正原則，這裏，法院的認定標准爲四個：（1）仲裁裁決違反了哪種自然公正；（2）如何違反；（3）違反的行爲與裁決的關聯；（4）該行爲是如何侵害當事人利益。（(a) which rule of natural justice has been breached;(b) how it was breached; (c) in what way the breach was connected to the making of the award; and (d) how the breach prejudiced the rights of the challenging party）本案中，雖然當事人提供了證人，但是證人並不能達到其證明目的，這與仲裁庭剝奪其訴權無關。
信息源于：臨時仲裁ADA
