仲裁早新闻：法院驳回当事人以违反自然公平...（新加坡案）

仲裁早新闻：法院驳回当事人以违反自然公平原则为由撤销仲裁裁决申请（新加坡案）

2020年7月21日，在CDM and others v CDP [2020] SGHC 141一案中，原告以仲裁裁决超出管辖权、裁决违反自然公正原则为由，申请中止执行并撤销仲裁裁决。新加坡高等法院认为，原告在会议记录中认可了合同所约定的付款条件，但实际却拒绝付款，其主张前后矛盾，原告拒绝付款的做法不合理。另外，原告在反请求答辩中的内容涉及仲裁争议事项。法院据此认为裁决并未超越管辖事项，故驳回了该申请。

一、案情介绍

原告CDM、CDN与CDO是新加坡公司，被告CDP是一家中国的建筑公司。CDM与CDN作为发包人分别与承包人CDP签订了设计建造一套钻井设备合同（以下简称：X）和井架设备的合同（以下简称：Y）。CDO是两发包人的控股公司，为上述工程合同的履行分别向CDP提供了两份担保（以下分别简称：X担保、Y担保）。

双方就上述合同的履行以及第四期款项的支付产生争议。原告认为合同补充条款2第6项第四期款项支付的前提是被告已获得其批准安排设备下水。被告则主张合同第四期款项已经具备付款条件，向原告主张付款。双方向新加坡国际仲裁中心提起仲裁与反请求。仲裁庭作出了对被告有利的最终裁决。

原告就裁决涉及X合同的部分有异议，以仲裁裁决超超出管辖权、裁决违反自然公正原则为由，向法院提交中止执行申请，并在OS 1307/2019原诉传票申请中申请撤销仲裁裁决。被告则向法院提交OS 1124/2019原诉传票，申请执行该裁决。

二、法院认定

首先，法院从程序角度认为，原告提出的中止执行申请，又提出该申请和OS 1307/2019案件一并审理，上述中止申请本应在OS 1307/2019案庭审之前或庭审中提出，但原告并未这样做。法院认为原告的上述申请只是为了拖延执行程序。因此，法院并未支持其中止执行的申请。（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案的两项主张，分析撤销仲裁裁决的必要性。

1、仲裁裁决未超越仲裁庭管辖权

原告认为虽然仲裁庭认定原告于2015年4月28日批准X合同的标的物第一次下水这便满足了被告在同年5月3日的下水前具备的先决条件，然而，该时间并非被告在仲裁中所主张的2015年1月20日这个时间节点。仲裁庭的裁决是对先发生的事情产生了溯及力，这是原告不予认可的。对于以上主张，法院不予认可。

法院认为，原被告双方都意识到本案的关键事实是原告是否批准下水，这是合同补充条款2第6项第四期款项支付的条件。虽然被告仅从双方签订的合同补充条款2第6项d的付款条件角度提出主张，但现有证据清楚表明，原告比被告更早知道第二次下水以及在此之前的施工和进度会议的相关性。因此法院认为，原告是想从合同角度先发制人。（ 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.）

原告在仲裁阶段初期就意识到了2015年1月20日第一次下水的进度和建造会议以及第二次5月3日下水的相关性，因此仲裁庭认为上述时间节点的争议已经提交了仲裁庭，需要仲裁庭进行审理。（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，原告无疑清楚2015年4月28日的会议和2015年5月3日的第二次下水的关联性，因此双方在向对方送达答辩状时对有关第一次和第二次下水以及建造进度会议的划定均已经明确列明。综上所述，法院认为仲裁庭有权就2015年5月3日第二次下水是否满合同补充条款2第6项进行裁决。（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、仲裁裁决未违反自然公正原则，未剥夺当事人的辩论权

虽然本案原告主张仲裁庭剥夺其辩论权，该行为违反了自然公正原则。但法院认为，原告清楚知悉被告的仲裁，有充分的机会作出回应，因此驳回了其请求。具体理由如下：

法院认为，庭审中被申请人（本案原告）对申请人的证人进行了充分的交叉询问。原告有足够的机会在庭审中解决第一次会议以及第二次会议中关于下水的问题，而上述问题已在仲裁的争议事项中列明。（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）且仲裁庭对双方争议的焦点总结无误，且处理方式得当。（On its part, the Tribunal met the parties’ competing arguments head-on and dealt with them as it was entitled to.）

法院认为，当事方在请求与反请求以及庭审记录期间的观点都是仲裁庭调查的结果，也是裁决的组成部分。原告对被告的观点清楚知悉，且知道下水施工会议的节点。（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.）且由于双方均对争议提交材料，仲裁庭已就上述证据进行了两次审查。因此，仲裁庭无需在要求双方提交进一步的意见。

法院进而就原告所主张的仲裁庭未允许原告就2015年1月20日第一次下水进行答辩，以及拒绝对原告提供的专家证人进行交叉询问以就两个主张进行论述。法院认为，第一次下水的时间只是仲裁庭就案件事实进行的认定，并非仲裁裁决的主文。（This conclusion was, in my view, subsidiary to and not dispositive of the Tribunal’s decision.）至于原告提交的专家证人，其本有机会在庭上接受询问。法院采纳了被告的观点认为，备忘录的结构就是要各方指定的专家就争议中的每一个子问题进行权衡，显然，原告提供的专家证人并没有解决诉争的合同附录2第6条规定的条件是否成就这个问题。相反，他是按照指示对备忘录中的每一个子问题作出回应。仲裁庭在指导原告律师进行质证时，并不是疏忽大意。在仲裁庭介入的时候，原告实际上是在要求其专家证人解释合同附录2。然而，解释合同并非技术专家的责任。（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，法院认为，仲裁庭并没有违反自然公正原则。

综上所述，法院认为，仲裁庭并不存在剥夺原告诉权的情形，原告的两项申请理由不成立。因此，法院裁定驳回OS 1307/2019案撤销仲裁裁决申请。

三、案评

仲裁事项超越管辖权是常见的申请撤销仲裁裁决的理由之一。由于仲裁是基于双方合意所形成的争议解决形式，因此，任意一方请求仲裁的基础便是双方就仲裁事项进行约定。通常的超裁包括两种情形，一种是裁决超出仲裁协议约定的范围，另一种是仲裁事项虽是双方约定，但并非当事人主张的请求事项。本案的原告的请求便与第二种相似。

新加坡高等法院判断仲裁超裁的依据是判例Sui Southern Gas Co Ltd v Habibullah Coastal Power Co (Pte) Ltd[2010] 3 SLR 1 at [34]，根据该案，超裁的认定标准有两项：（1）是否属于提交仲裁庭审理的事项，以及（2）仲裁裁决是否涉及这类事项，或者是否是一个本来与仲裁庭待决事项不相关的新的争议。（(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.）本案法院并未支持原告主张，主要是由于仲裁阶段双方均提交的材料与争议的时间点有关，当事人对一个进行了主张，另外几个关键时间点也都会有所涉及，因此不是一个新的主张，不应独立解决。

关于仲裁庭是否剥夺当事人诉权，违反自然公正原则，这里，法院的认定标准为四个：（1）仲裁裁决违反了哪种自然公正；（2）如何违反；（3）违反的行为与裁决的关联；（4）该行为是如何侵害当事人利益。（(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，虽然当事人提供了证人，但是证人并不能达到其证明目的，这与仲裁庭剥夺其诉权无关。

信息源于：临时仲裁ADA