多方协议中第三人(协议签署方)加入已开始仲裁程序的“同意”要求

更多仲裁有关专业文章，尽在We 信 工 号 “商事仲裁研究”

The limits of consent in multi-party arbitration agreements

多方仲裁协议中同意的限制

作者：Nandakumar Ponniya, Richard Allen and Nicholas Tan

翻译：杜越

一般而言，如果仲裁案件中的当事方，被申请加入的第三方均同意将第三方加入仲裁，则仲裁庭有权让第三方当事人加入已开始的仲裁程序。但是，在争议出现后，该种全部同意的情况非常少见。同时，仲裁与诉讼相比而言，比较明显的缺点之一在于无法一揽子解决争议，以及无法强制拉入部分当事人以查明事实。所以，在一些规则中，如以下涉及的伦敦国际仲裁院的仲裁规则中，就涉及到了强制加入“forced joinder”的内容。

强制加入的核心在于，并不需要已加入程序的全部当事人及被申请加入的人均同意，而是，在满足特定申请及承诺的条件下，仲裁庭即有权主动将其他当事人拉入的程序。

在以下分享的解读和案件中，新加坡高等法院驳回了申请方所认为的，全部当事人在签署原仲裁协议同意适用LCIA规则时，即默示的认可了被强制拉入仲裁程序的意见，认为该等同意须在仲裁程序开始后明确的以书面作出或仲裁协议中明确的说明同意被强制拉入已开始的仲裁协议，仅仅是多方当事人签署了同一份仲裁协议适用LCIA规则本身，并不能代表其同意加入当事人精心选择的被申请人的仲裁程序中。

Certain arbitration rules, such as Article 22.1(vii) of the London Court of International Arbitration Rules (“LCIA Rules 2014”), provide for a “forced joinder.” This empowers an arbitral tribunal to order a consenting third party to be joined to extant arbitration proceedings, provided that an existing party also consents to the joinder, even if the other parties to the arbitration proceedings object. However, what constitutes the requisite “consent” and how may such “consent” be established?

某些《仲裁规则》中规定了“强制加入”的条款，例如伦敦国际仲裁院仲裁规则第22.1（vii）条（以下称“ LCIA 2014规则”）。该条款授权仲裁庭在第三方同意时，有允许其加入现有仲裁程序的权利，但前提是至少案件的一方当事方也同意加入，即使另一方反对。 但是，什么构成必要的“同意”，以及如何建立这种“同意”的方式呢？

In the recent decision in CJD v CJE and another [2021] SGHC 61, the Singapore High Court took the opportunity to consider the element of “consent” in a “forced joinder” and issues revolving around the proper interpretation and ambit of Article 22.1(vii) of the LCIA Rules 2014.

在最近的CJD诉CJE案及其他[2021] SGHC 61案件中，新加坡高等法院审查了“强制加入”中“同意”的要素，并围绕LCIA2014年规则第22.1（vii）条的合理解释和范围问题展开讨论。

Importantly, the High Court made it clear that simply being a signatory and party to a multi-party contract containing the arbitration agreement was not sufficient in and of itself to constitute consent by a third party to being joined in any arbitral reference involving any of the other parties to the multi-party contract. The High Court emphasized that as a “forced joinder” in the context of arbitration is a drastic one, in a multi-party contract, the wording of the relevant institutional arbitration rule and the arbitration agreement must be clear and unambiguous in empowering an arbitral tribunal to allow a forced joinder and containing or evidencing the express consent in writing to such joinder by the third person proposed to be joined.

重要的是，高等法院明确指出，仅仅作为包含仲裁条款的多方协议的签署方和当事方，本身并不足以构成第三方的同意，以加入现有涉及其他多方协议中当事人的仲裁程序中。 高等法院强调，仲裁中的“强制加入”程序严格判断，在多方合同中，有关机构仲裁规则和仲裁协议的措辞必须清晰、明确，方能赋予仲裁庭在有证据证明拟加入的第三人以书面形式明确表示同意下，才允许强制加入的权力。

Background 案件背景

In this case, the Plaintiff entered into a joint venture agreement with the First Defendant, Second Defendant (which owned 100% of the issued shares in CJE), and three other parties (“Joint Venture Agreement”). A joint venture company was subsequently established pursuant to the Joint Venture Agreement (“Joint Venture Company”).

在该案件中，申请人与第一被申请人，被申请加入的案外人（拥有CJE已发行股份的100％）和其他三方订立了合资协议（以下称“合资协议”）。 随后根据合资协议成立了一家合资公司（以下称“合资公司”）

The Joint Venture Agreement provided that any dispute arising out of, or in connection with the Joint Venture Company would be resolved by way of an arbitration seated in Singapore in accordance with the LCIA Rules 2014 (Clause 36.3).

《合资协议》第36.3条规定，由合资公司引起的或与之有关的任何争议均应根据LCIA2014规则在新加坡仲裁解决。

Subsequently, the First Defendant commenced arbitration proceedings in Singapore against the Plaintiff under the auspices of the LCIA (“Arbitration”), and the Plaintiff filed inter alia, an application to the Tribunal to join the Second Defendant as a party to the Arbitration (“Joinder Application”).

随后，第一被申请人在LCIA的主持下在新加坡对申请人提起仲裁程序（以下称“仲裁”），申请人向仲裁庭申请将案外人将入本案仲裁程序（“ 加入申请”）。

The Tribunal rejected the Joinder Application:

仲裁庭拒绝了加入申请：

From the wording of Article 22 of the LCIA Rules 2014, the Tribunal considered that it had the power to allow a third party to be joined in the arbitration if an existing party applies for joinder and if the third-party consents in writing to be joined. The Tribunal also considered that such consent may be given in the arbitration clause itself, or in a document made after the arbitration has commenced.

根据LCIA2014规则第22条的措词，仲裁庭认为，如果现有一方提出加入申请，且第三方书面同意加入，则仲裁庭有权允许第三方加入仲裁。 仲裁庭还认为，可以在仲裁条款本身或在仲裁开始后作出的文件中给予这种同意。

However, the Tribunal did not accept that the Second Defendant had consented to be joined into the present arbitration merely because it signed the Joint Venture Agreement. The Tribunal expected express wording to have been used if the Second Defendant was agreeing to be joined. On the facts, there also appeared to be no consent given after commencement of the Arbitration. As the Plaintiff had not satisfied the requirement of showing that the Second Defendant had agreed in writing to be joined, the Joinder Application failed.

但是，仲裁庭不接受案外人仅因为签署了合资协议而同意加入本仲裁。 如果案外人同意加入本仲裁程序，仲裁庭期望使用明确的措词。 在事实上，仲裁程序开始后似乎也没有获得该种同意。 由于申请人未满足案外人已书面同意加入的要求，因此该加入申请被驳回。

The Plaintiff then filed an Originating Summons in the High Court asking that the Tribunal’s decision be reversed and/or wholly set aside. The High Court held that the Tribunal had not erred in declining to join the Second Defendant to the Arbitration.

然后，申请人向高等法院提交了一份原诉传票，要求将仲裁庭的决定推翻和/或完全撤销。高等法院认为，仲裁庭拒绝案外人的加入并没有错误。

The Plaintiff challenged the Tribunal’s decision on the ground that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to permit the joinder of the Second Defendant to the Arbitration. The Plaintiff argued that the Second Defendant had consented to being joined by: (a) signing the Joint Venture Agreement which, by virtue of the arbitration agreement in clause 36.3, incorporated Article 22.1(viii) of the LCIA Rules 2014; and (b) through its conduct in behaving as if it was already a rightful party to the Arbitration. The Plaintiff also contended that the intention behind the Joint Venture Agreement was that every party to it could be joined to any arbitration arising from the Joint Venture Agreement.

申请人对仲裁庭的决定提出异议，理由是该仲裁庭确实具有允许案外人加入仲裁的管辖权。申请人辩称，案外人通过以下方式表示其同意加入：（a）签署了合资协议，该协议第36.3条中的仲裁协议，纳入了LCIA2014规则第22.1（viii）条的内容；（b）通过其行为显示，它已经是仲裁的拥有权力的当事方。申请人还认为，《合资协议》背后的意图是，《合资协议》的每一方均可加入由《合资协议》引起的任何仲裁。

The High Court found that the requisite consent in Article 22.1(vii) of the LCIA Rules 2014 may be established in the following three situations:

高等法院认为，在以下三种情况下，可以确立LCIA 2014规则第22.1（vii）条的必要同意：

where the third person and applying party have consented to such joinder in writing after the Commencement Date (defined in Article 1.4 of the LCIA Rules 2014 as the date on which the Registrar of the LCIA receives the Request for Arbitration from the party wishing to commence the arbitration);

如果第三方和申请方在起始日（LCIA2014规则第1.4条定义为LCIA处收到仲裁申请书希望开始仲裁之日）之后以书面形式同意了该加入事项;

where the third person and applying party have consented to such joinder in writing earlier in the arbitration agreement; or

如果第三人和申请方在较早的仲裁协议中以书面形式同意这种加入； 或者

where the written consent of the third person and the applying party to such joinder involves applying a combination of (a) and (b) above.

如果第三人和申请方的书面同意涉及上述（a）和（b）的组合形式。

In this case, the crux was whether the Second Defendant, by virtue of it having signed the Joint Venture Agreement and being a party to the arbitration agreement in Clause 36.3, had also thereby consented in writing to being joined as a party to the Arbitration. The High Court answered this question in the negative.

在这种情况下，问题的关键在于案外人在签署合资协议并成为第36.3条中的仲裁协议的当事方的行为，是否可以被视为以书面形式同意加入仲裁程序。高等法院否定了该种理解。

The High Court disagreed with the Plaintiff’s contention that simply being a signatory and party to the Joint Venture Agreement and therefore, the arbitration agreement, was sufficient in and of itself to constitute consent by the Second Defendant in writing to being joined in any arbitral reference involving any of the other parties to the Joint Venture Agreement:

高等法院不同意申请人的论点，即仅作为合资协议的签署方和当事方，因此该仲裁协议本身就足以构成案外人的书面同意，可以加入涉及因合资协议已产生纠纷的仲裁案件：

First, the plain wording of Article 22.1(viii) does not lend itself to such an interpretation. The provision refers to the consent by the third person “to such joinder in writing…” being contained “in the Arbitration Agreement” if such consent was given earlier than the Commencement Date. There is no mention in the rule of the requisite consent in writing being found simply by being a party to an arbitration agreement no matter how generally worded.

首先，第22.1（viii）条的明文措词并未作出这种解释。 该条款中的第三人同意是在“仲裁协议……”“书面同意……”，且该种同意在开始仲裁程序之前。 规则中没有提及仅通过成为仲裁协议的当事方即可获得了必要的书面同意，无论其措辞有多总括。

Second, whilst it is possible and consistent with the freedom conferred by party autonomy, that an arbitration agreement could be drafted in terms that clearly and unambiguously stipulate that a third person (by being a party to the contract and the arbitration agreement contained therein) thereby also signifies its consent in writing to being joined as a party in any arbitral reference between any of the other parties to the arbitration agreement, Clause 36.3 of the Joint Venture Agreement did not contain the necessary clear and unambiguous consent in writing of the Second Defendant to being joined to the Arbitration between the Second Defendant and the Plaintiff.

其次，相关理解有可能与当事人意思自治的原则下赋予其自由意志的理解一致，但仲裁协议可以清晰及明确地起草为第三人（通过成为合同的一方和其中的仲裁协议的一方）亦书面同意加入因协议产生的的任何其他当事方之间的仲裁案件。本《合资协议》第36.3条未包含案外人的必要的书面明确同意以加入申请人与被申请人之间的仲裁案件。

The High Court also agreed that for Article 22.1(viii) to be triggered, the consent of the third person to being joined must be express and in writing. Therefore, even assuming, arguendo, that consent could be implied or inferred in this case by virtue of the Second Defendant being a party to the Joint Venture Agreement and the arbitration agreement, it would still not be enough to meet the threshold requirements of Article 22.1(viii) of the LCIA Rules 2014. For the same reasons, the High Court rejected the Plaintiff’s contention that the Second Defendant’s conduct could be taken as suggesting that it had consented to the joinder.

高等法院还同意，要触发第22.1（viii）条，必须以书面形式明确表示同意第三人加入。 因此，即使认为，在这种情况下，由于案外人是合资协议和仲裁协议的当事方，可以暗示或推测出同意的意思表示，但仍不足以满足LCIA2014年规则第22.1（viii）条的门槛。出于同样的原因，高等法院驳回了申请人关于案外人的行为可以视为暗示其同意加入的论点。

The High Court also found the Defendant’s argument based on the doctrine of double separability to be persuasive. This doctrine distinguishes between the original arbitration contract between the parties and the separate contract that arises between the arbitrants to a dispute in a particular arbitration reference. This is because the third person (who may be a party to the original arbitration contract) is a stranger to the second contract that arises between the arbitrants in the arbitration reference that the third person’s consent to being joined is required and essential. Applying this to the present case, despite the Second Defendant already being a party to the arbitration agreement, the Second Defendant’s consent to being joined in an arbitration between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant would still be required. Merely being a party to the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 36.3 of the Joint Venture Agreement was not, in and of itself, sufficient to signal consent in writing from the Second Defendant to being joined and being made party to that second contract between the First Defendant and Plaintiff arising out of the arbitration reference in the Arbitration.

高等法院还发现，基于双重可分性理论的被申请人论点具有说服力。该学说区分了当事方之间的原始仲裁协议和在特定仲裁案件中争议当事人人之间产生的单独协议。这是因为第三人（可能是原始仲裁协议的当事方）系第二份合同中的陌生人，而第二份协议在仲裁案件的当事人之间产生，即第三人同意加入是必不可少的，也是必不可少的。将该理论适用于本案，尽管案外人已经是仲裁协议的当事方，但仍需要其同意加入申请人和第一被申请人之间的仲裁程序。仅作为《合资、协议》第36.3条所载仲裁协议的当事方，本身并不足以表明案外人书面同意加入第一被申请人与申请人成为第二个合同的当事方的仲裁案件。

Key takeaways 要点

It should be remembered that whilst the fundamental principles of party autonomy and consent lie at the heart of arbitration, the mere fact that a party has signed a multi-party contract would not be sufficient in and of itself to constitute consent to being joined to extant arbitral proceedings.

应当记住，虽然当事方意思自治和同意的基本原则是仲裁的核心，但仅当事方签署多方合同这一事实本身并不足以构成同意加入现有仲裁程序。

On the contrary, whether there is the requisite consent would depend on a proper interpretation of the wording of the rules of the selected institutional arbitration and whether the wording of the parties’ arbitration agreement is sufficiently clear and unambiguous.

相反，是否存在必要同意的理解将取决于对选定的仲裁机构仲裁规则的措词的正确解释，以及当事各方的仲裁协议的措词是否足够清晰和明确。

At the time that multi-party contracts are drafted, there is sometimes a misplaced assumption that all parties will cooperate in the event that a dispute subsequently arises. This is rarely the case in practice and so obtaining any kind of consent after a dispute has crystallized is often impossible.

在起草多方合同时，有时会存在一个错误的假设，即随后发生争议时，所有各方都会合作。 在实践中，这种情况很少见，因此在争端解决后通常很难获得任何形式的同意。

Parties to a multi-party contract should therefore take care to review the rules of their selected arbitral institution and include appropriate wording in their arbitration agreement, if their intention is to allow a “forced joinder.”

因此，多方合同的当事方如果打算允许“强制加入”，则应谨慎审查其选定的仲裁机构的规则，并在仲裁协议中包含适当的措词。

供仲裁学习爱好共享之用，如有侵权，请及时联系我们。