新聞資訊 115选5开奖结果查询>新聞資訊>法律資訊

115选5开奖结果查询 www.ajrdx.com 《國際仲裁簡訊》2019年5月號 International Arbitration Newsletter May 2019

作者:中倫文德   丨  時間:2019.05.29   丨  瀏覽:470


香港國際仲裁中心在俄羅斯獲永久仲裁機構地位


2019425日,香港國際仲裁中心成為首家在俄羅斯獲永久仲裁機構地位的國際仲裁機構。


作為在俄羅斯獲批準的永久仲裁機構,香港國際仲裁中心有權管理:(1)仲裁地在俄羅斯的國際爭議;(2)來自俄羅斯任何特別行政區的當事方之間的爭議,或在任何此類地區開展活動所達成協議項下的爭議;(3)俄羅斯《聯邦法》第457)、(7.1)條和《俄羅斯聯邦仲裁程序法典》第225.1條規定的特定類型的企業爭議,主要包括股份權屬的爭議,法律實體的參與者之間就其管理所達成協議項下的爭議,及股票或其他證券登記及其持有者的權利、義務的相關爭議等。


HKIAC Permitted to Act as A Permanent Arbitral Arbitration in Russia


On 25 April 2019, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) became the first foreign arbitral institution that be granted permission to function as a permanent arbitral arbitration (“PAI”) Russia’s Arbitration Legislation.


As a PAI, HKIAC is authorized to administer : (i) international disputes seated in Russia; (ii) disputes between parties from any special administrative region as defined under Russian law or disputes arising from agreements to carry out activities in any such region; and (iii)certain types of corporate disputes in respect of a legal entity in Russia (Article 45(7) and (7.1) of the Federal Law and Article 225.1 of the Russian Arbitral Procedure Code) concerning ownership of stocks or shares, agreements between the participants of a legal entity concerning the management of that legal entity, and regarding the registration of rights to stocks and other securities, the exercise of their rights and discharge of other obligations etc.


香港國際仲裁中心發布2018年仲裁數據


根據香港國際仲裁中心(“HKIAC”)于今年4月發布的2018年統計數據,2018年共受理521起案件,其中,265起為仲裁案件,21起為調解案件,235起為域名爭議案件。在2018年提交HKIAC265起仲裁案件中,146起為HKIAC依照HKIAC機構仲裁規則或《聯合國國際貿易法委員會仲裁規則》管理的仲裁。提交HKIAC265起仲裁案件中71.7%為國際案件,即至少有一方為非香港當事人(2018年由HKIAC管理的仲裁案件中有80.7%為國際仲裁案件)。所有仲裁案件的爭議金額總和達到522億港幣(約67億美元),相比2017年的50億美元增長了34%。由HKIAC管理的仲裁案件爭議金額總和為492億港幣(約63億美元),個案平均爭議金額為3.372億港幣(約4320萬美元)。共有來自40個國家或地區的當事人于2018年參與了HKIAC仲裁,這些當事人中排名前十的國家或地區為(按案件數量排列):香港、中國內地、英屬維爾京群島、美國、開曼群島、新加坡、韓國、澳門/越南、馬來西亞。


HKIAC Released 2018 Case Statistics


According to 2018 Annual Casework Report released by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) in April, a total of 521 cases were submitted to HKIAC in 2018, among which, 265 were arbitrations, 21 were mediations and 235 were domain name disputes. For the 265 arbitrations submitted to HKIAC in 2018, 146 were administered by HKIAC under the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules or the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. 71.7% of the 265 arbitrations cases submitted to HKIAC in 2018 were international in nature, i.e. at least one party was not from Hong Kong (80.7% of the administered arbitrations filed in 2018 were international cases). The total amount in dispute in all arbitration cases was HK$52.2 billion (approximately US$6.7 billion), which represented a 34% increase from US$5 billion in 2017. The total amount in dispute in all administered cases was HK$49.2 billion (approximately US$6.3 billion). The average amount in dispute in administered arbitrations was HK$337.2 million (approximately US$43.2 million). Parties from 40 jurisdictions participated in the arbitrations commenced at HKIAC in 2018, the top ten geographical origins or nationalities of these parties were: Hong Kong, Mainland China, British Virgin Islands, United States, Cayman Islands, Singapore, South Korea, Macau/Vietnam, Malaysia.


印度孟買高等法院:仲裁裁決因仲裁員曾被仲裁當事方多次指定而被法院撤銷


相關法條:

印度《1996年仲裁與調解法案》(“《法案》”)第 11 (8) 條規定:“最高法院、高等法院、個人或機構在指定仲裁員前,應根據第 12 (1) 的規定,要求相關仲裁員就以下事項進行披露:(a)任何仲裁當事方在協議中所要求的仲裁員資質;及(b)任何可能影響仲裁員獨立性和公正性的披露事項及其他因素?!?/span>


《法案》第 12 (1) 條規定:“(1)當某人有可能被指定為仲裁員時,他須以書面披露以下情況,(a)無論直接或間接,過去或現在,存在與任何當事方的關系,或利益關系,或與爭議相關的,不論經濟、業務、專業或任何類型,只要有可能導致對其的獨立性和公正性產生合理懷疑;及(b)有可能會影響其對仲裁投入足夠時間,特別是其在十二個月內完成整個仲裁程序的能力。解釋1:關于是否導致對仲裁員的獨立性和公正性產生合理懷疑的情形可參考附件5?!?/span>


《法案》附件5的第1項規定:“仲裁員是仲裁當事方的雇員,咨詢專家,顧問或與當事方在過去或現在存在業務關系?!?/span>


《法案》附件5的第14項規定:“仲裁員定期為指定其為仲裁員的一方或該方的關聯公司提供建議,仲裁員或其公司從中獲得重大的經濟收入?!?/span>


《法案》附件5的第22項規定:“仲裁員在過去三年內已被仲裁當事方或該方的關聯公司兩次或多次指定為仲裁員?!?/span>

 

Raghani Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v HDB Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. 一案的主要爭議焦點在于,在獨任仲裁員已被其中一方在過去的200多起仲裁案件中指定為仲裁員的情況下,其作出的仲裁裁決是否應被撤銷。


法院觀點:

1) 鑒于該仲裁員已被一方當事人在之前的200多起仲裁案件中指定為仲裁員,可以認為該仲裁從相關案件中獲得了重大的經濟收入,且該仲裁員是由該仲裁當事方單方面指定。

2) 在本案中,已產生針對該仲裁員裁決爭議的有效性和適格性的合理懷疑,因此該仲裁員本不應被列入推薦仲裁員名單。

3) 該仲裁員作出的仲裁裁決因其本身的指定違反《法條》第12條和附件5而應被認定為不合法。

綜上,法院撤銷了該獨任仲裁員作出的仲裁裁決。


High Court of Judicature at Bombay: The Arbitration Award Has Been Set Aside on Grounds of the Arbitrator Had Been Appointed by One Arbitrating Party in Multiple Cases


Relevant Provision:


Section 11 (8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (“ACA”) of India provides, “The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court or the person or institution designated by such Court, before appointing an arbitrator, shall seek a disclosure in writing from the prospective arbitrator in terms of sub-section (1) of section 12, and have due regard to: (a) any qualifications required for the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties; and (b) the contents of the disclosure and other considerations as are likely to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator.


Section 12 (1) of the ACA India provides, “(1) When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose in writing any circumstances, (a) such as the existence either direct or indirect, of any past or present relationship with or interest in any of the parties or in relation to the subject-matter in dispute, whether financial, business, professional or other kind, which is likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality; and (b) which are likely to affect his ability to devote sufficient time to the arbitration and in particular his ability to complete the entire arbitration within a period of twelve months. Explanation 1The grounds stated in the Fifth Schedule shall guide in determining whether circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of an arbitrator. …”


Item 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the ACA provides, “The arbitrator is an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party.”


Item 14 of the Fifth Schedule to the ACA provides, “The arbitrator regularly advises the appointing party or an affiliate of the appointing party, and the arbitrator or his or her firm derives a significant financial income therefrom.”


Item 22 of the Fifth Schedule to the ACA provides, “The arbitrator has within the past three years been appointed as arbitrator on two or more occasions by one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties.”


In Raghani Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v HDB Financial Services Ltd. & Anr., the key issue was whether the arbitral award made by the sole arbitrator shall be set aside, provided that such sole arbitrator had been appointed by one arbitrating party in more than 200 arbitration proceedings.


Court’s View:

The court set aside the impugned award of the sole arbitrator for the following reasons:

a) Since the arbitrator has been appointed by one arbitrating party in more than 200 cases, it would permit him to derive a significant financial income from such cases, in addition, the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by such party.

b) In this case, there were reasonable doubts on the legal validity and competence of the arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, thus the arbitrator ought not to have entered a reference.

c) The arbitration award shall be held illegal rendering the appointment of the arbitrator itself as illegal and contrary with the provisions of Section 12 and Fifth Schedule to the ACA.


如何在香港申請財產保全


201942日,最高人民法院和香港特別行政區政府律政司正式簽署了《關于內地與香港特別行政區法院就仲裁程序相互協助保全的安排》(以下簡稱“《安排》”)。根據《安排》,香港仲裁程序的當事方可向相關內地人民法院申請采取財產、證據和行為保全,同樣內地仲裁程序的當事方亦可向相關香港特區法院申請采取強制令及其他臨時救濟措施。但由于兩地的法律制度和法律語言存在著明顯差異;而且,與中國內地的財產保全相關規定主要集中于《民事訴訟法》及相關司法解釋不同,香港的財產保全相關規定在法例中則較為分散,為便于讀者能夠更好地了解如何在香港申請財產保全,本期《仲裁簡訊》將對香港財產保全的相關規定和程序進行簡要梳理。


法院和仲裁庭均有臨時救濟措施的決定權


香港作為普通法司法管轄區,法院和仲裁庭均有臨時救濟措施的決定權。這與中國內地的現行制度存在顯著差異,在大陸這項權力是法院所獨有的,仲裁庭并無授予臨時救濟措施的權能。香港《仲裁條例》(第609章)第35條直接授予了各仲裁庭臨時措施的決定權,第36條則對準予采取臨時措施的條件進行了規定,“仲裁當事人請求采取臨時措施的,應當使仲裁庭確信:(a)不下令采取這種措施可能造成損害,這種損害無法通過判給損害賠償金而充分補償,而且遠遠大于準予采取這種措施而可能對其所針對的當事人造成的損害;以及(b)根據索賠請求所依據的案情,請求方當事人相當有可能勝訴。對這種可能性的判定不影響仲裁庭此后作出任何裁定的自由裁量權?!鋇?,仲裁庭的臨時救濟措施的決定權也有諸多限制,比如:這種命令不能經由單方面聆訊作出;一般不能對第三方強制執行;且不能達到如法院命令同等強度的強制執行力等。


根據《高等法院條例》(第4章)第21L條,無論在聆訊任何訟案或事宜之前、之時或之后,仲裁當事人向香港高等法院申請臨時措施,如果法院認為合適,即可授予強制令或指定接管人以保全有爭議的財產并?;ど昵肴說睦??!噸儼錳趵返?/span>55條也確認,仲裁庭或仲裁當事人經仲裁庭同意,可以向法院申請保全相關證據。在實踐中,法院處理審核申請的速度通常比仲裁庭更快。如法院認為確屬緊急情況的,申請人即可在申請當日獲得資產凍結令及其他救濟措施,前提是適格的法官或暫委法官有充足時間考慮其申請。此外,當仲裁庭的臨時措施決定權由于申請涉及第三方或需經單方面聆訊提出而受到限制時,向法院申請臨時措施的程序優勢就體現了出來。但,無論仲裁當事方采取何種途徑申請臨時措施,法院或仲裁庭都將遵循相同原則來衡量是否應授予相關臨時措施。


財產保全措施的類型


最常見的保全措施是資產凍結令,也稱為瑪瑞瓦禁令。該強制令可有效地限制任何人在法院管轄范圍內處理和轉移申請人所主張的價值范圍內的資產,以確保判決將不會無財產可執行。資產凍結令通常是經仲裁庭同意后,申請人經單方面聆訊向法院申請獲得。申請時申請人必須證明:(a)其具有較大的勝訴可能性(一個有勝訴機會的案件);(b)被申請人在香港擁有資產;(c)授予該強制令相對便利;以及(d)確存在如申請被拒判決將無法強制執行的風險。根據《實務指示》11.1,申請人欲向法院申請資產凍結令的,必須提供令狀或原訴傳票,支持單方面申請的誓章及命令草案。申請人在申請資產凍結令的同時多半亦會向法院申請資產披露令,資產披露令是一種附屬于資產凍結令的輔助命令,便于確認資產的位置、種類、以及資產有沒有被轉讓給第三方等等,以利執行。此外,根據《高等法院條例》第21M條,“在不損害第21L(1)條的原則下,原訟法庭可就符合以下描述的法律程序,藉命令委任接管人或批予臨時濟助(a)已在或將會在香港以外地方展開;而且(b)能產生一項可根據任何條例或普通法在香港強制執行的判決?!笨梢鑰闖魷愀鄯ㄔ撼絲梢允謨瓚辰嵯愀郾鏡刈什淖什辰崍?,也可在一定條件下授予全球資產凍結令,以凍結被申請人在香港境外的資產。


第二種保全措施是容許查察令,也稱為安東皮勒命令。該強制令可強令被申請人允許申請人進入其所控制下的場所,檢查所有有爭議的文件和材料,并容許申請人扣押并確保該等文件和材料的安全保管。因此,容許查察令可以極大地幫助申請人確定資產的位置及性質,并理清相關財產的法定所有權。申請容許查察令的程序與資產凍結令相同,可經由單方面聆訊向法院申請獲得。申請時申請人必須證明:(a)其具有較大的勝訴可能性;(b)如申請被拒,申請人將面臨重大或實際危險;(c)證據有極大可能性被轉移或毀滅;(d)容許查察令可能導致的被申請人(和他的業務)的損失不得超過不授予該強制令所造成的損害或不得與該強制令的合法目的相違背。


在實踐中,鑒于保全措施申請的單方面性,申請人向法院提出申請的時間往往至關重要,因為法院授予強制令的其中一個條件是確有采取保全措施的緊迫性和必要性,因此申請人提出申請的時間越晚,則法院授予該等強制令的難度就越大。若法院認為申請人的理由足夠充分,一般情況下會在申請當日即授予相關強制令。此外,申請時申請人還須支付一筆固定申請費1,045港幣,至于保全擔保費,對于在香港擁有一定資產或財產的申請人,法院通常只會要求申請人作出承諾,而對于資產位于香港境外的申請人,法院則可能要求申請人向法院直接支付保全擔保費。另一方面,若法院認為申請人的理由不充分,或裁定該等申請未能達到法院所認定的單方面聆訊所需舉證的標準,法院有權將該等申請由單方面聆訊改為各方之間的聆訊,并另行安排提訊日。如果法院裁定需要進行各方之間的聆訊,那么各當事方均都有機會闡述理由,因此過程也會非常耗時。綜上,當事人單方面申請資產凍結令或其他保全措施成功與否的關鍵在于(i)能否使法院確信爭議資產確有流失風險;(ii)該等事項確有經單方面聆訊處理的緊迫性。


目前,所有能根據香港條例或普通法在香港執行案件的當事人均能經申請獲得資產凍結令、容許查察令等相關臨時措施。就措施的效果而言,雖然在香港,法院和仲裁庭均有臨時措施的決定權,但在被申請人不遵守命令的情況下,鑒于法院命令的強制力更高,因此向法庭申請臨時措施始終是首選方案。


How to Apply for Property Preservation in Hong Kong


On April 2, 2019, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region have entered into an Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (hereinafter referred to as “the Arrangement”). Pursuant to the Arrangement, any party to arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong may apply to the relevant Mainland Chinese courts for interim measures relating to the preservation of assets, evidence and conduct. Equally, any party to arbitral proceedings in Mainland China may apply to relevant Hong Kong courts for injunctions and other interim measures. However, since the legal systems and legal languages are significantly different in mainland China and Hong Kong, and unlike mainland China where the law relating to property preservation is centralized in Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations, in Hong Kong the provisions regarding property preservation are scattered in various ordinances, therefore, in order to help the readers to better understand how to apply for property preservation in Hong Kong, this month’s issue of International Arbitration will provide a brief introduction of the relevant regulations and procedures regarding property preservation in Hong Kong.


Ability of the Courts and Arbitral Tribunals to Grant Interim Measures


As a common law jurisdiction, the decision with regards to property preservation lies with both the courts and the arbitral tribunals in Hong Kong. This is a clear difference with the legal system in mainland China as arbitral tribunals generally have no power to grant interim measures, this power is reserved for the People’s Courts. Section 35 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) directly empowers the arbitral tribunal to order interim measures. The conditions for granting interim measures are contained in Section 36, which provides, “The party requesting an interim measure shall satisfy the arbitral tribunal that: (a) harm not adequately reparable by an award of damages is likely to result if the measure is not ordered, and such harm substantially outweighs the harm that is likely to result to the party against whom the measure is directed if the measure is granted; and (b) there is a reasonable possibility that the requesting party will succeed on the merits of the claim. The determination on this possibility shall not affect the discretion of the arbitral tribunal in making any subsequent determination.” There are however a number of limitations on the arbitral tribunal’s power to order interim measures: such orders cannot be made ex parte, they will generally not be enforceable against third parties, and a tribunal generally has less coercive power as the court etc.


In accordance with section 21L of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4), If, whether before, or at, or after the hearing of any cause or matter, parties to an arbitration apply for interim measures from the court, which, if the court thinks fit, can grant an injunction to preserve the property in dispute and protect the interests of the applicant. This is also recognized by the Arbitration Ordinance in Section 55, which states that the arbitral tribunal, or a party with the approval of the arbitral tribunal, may request from the court to grant an order relating to the preservation of evidence. In practice, an application to the courts will typically be processed faster than an application to the arbitral tribunal. When the court is satisfied the matter is one of urgency, Mareva Injunctions and other appropriate measures can be obtained by the applicant on the same day of application, provided that the qualified judge or deputy judge has adequate time to review the application. In addition, there are certain procedural advantages when applying to the courts for interim relief when arbitral tribunal’s power is restricted, for example where third parties are involved or where it is necessary for the application to be made ex parte. Regardless of which route the arbitrating party decides on when considering an interim remedy application, the court or arbitral tribunal applies the same general principles governing the grant of the interim measure in question.


Types of Property Preservation Measures


The most common interim relief is an asset freezing order, also known as a Mareva Injunction. This type of injunction will effectively restrain any party from dealing with and removing assets, up to the value of the claim, out of the jurisdiction, so as to ensure any judgement given will not be rendered empty. A Mareva Injunction is usually obtained ex parte directly from the court with the approval of the arbitral tribunal. In order to secure the grant of the order, the applicant has to satisfy the judge that (a) his case has a good prospect of success (a good arguable case); (b) the Respondent has assets in Hong Kong; (c) the balance of convenience is in favour with granting this injunction, and (d) that there is a real risk the judgement might not be enforceable in the future if the application is refused. In accordance with Practice Direction 11.1, the applicant shall provide the court with the issue of a writ or originating summons, an affidavit in support of the ex parte application, along with the draft of the order sought. In general, the applicants who apply for an asset freezing order would also apply to the court for an asset disclosure order, which is an order ancillary to the asset freezing order, so as to identify the position or nature of the assets as well as whether the asset has been transferred to any third party etc., and ultimately to ensure the enforcement of the asset freezing order. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 21M of the High Court Ordinance, “Without prejudice to section 21L(1), the Court of First Instance may by order appoint a receiver or grant other interim relief in relation to proceedings which (a) have been or are to be commenced in a place outside Hong Kong; and (b) are capable of giving rise to a judgment which may be enforced in Hong Kong under any Ordinance or at common law.”, it can be seen that the Hong Kong courts can grant not only an asset freezing order targeting the assets inside the territory of Hong Kong, but also a global asset freezing order targeting the Respondent’s assets outside the territory of Hong Kong.


The second type of interim relief is an Anton Piller Order. This is a mandatory order from the court, compelling the Respondent to permit the claimant to enter premises under the defendant’s control, inspect all documents and materials in dispute, and to seize and remove into safe custody. Thus, an Anton Piller Order can greatly assist in determining the location or nature of assets and clarifying the legal ownership of relevant property. The procedural steps for obtaining an Anton Piller Order are the same as a Mareva injunction with the application made ex parte. In order to secure the grant of the order, the applicant has to satisfy the judge that (a) his case has a good prospect of success; (b) there is significant or actual danger to the applicant if the application was refused; (c) more than possible that evidence will be removed or destroyed; (d) the harm of this order to the Respondent (or its business) must not outweigh the harm that is likely to result if the order is not granted, or is in conflict with the ultimate object of the order.


When dealing with these preservation measures, because of their ex parte nature, the timing of a party’s application to court is often crucial, due to the reason that the court needs to be satisfied that the application is one of urgency and necessary for it to be made ex parte, therefore, the more time that passes before an application is made, the more difficult it will become to satisfy the court to grant the order. If the court is satisfied by an applicant’s arguments, under normal conditions the order shall be handed down on the same day. For the order to be granted, the applicant is required to pay the fixed filing fee of the application in the sum of HK$1,045 and give some form of security for damages. For parties that have considerable assets or property in Hong Kong, the court will more easily allow an undertaking to suffice. Parties whose assets lie out of Hong Kong will more likely be required to pay the court security for damages. On the other hand, if the court is unsatisfied by a party’s arguments, or awards that such application fails to meet the standard of proof required for ex parte hearing, then the hearing will become inter partes and a return date will be arranged. This is a vastly more time-consuming process as both sides will be given the opportunity to argue their merits of the case. For these reasons, for party’s applying ex parte for Mareva injunctions or other freezing orders, it is of crucial importance to (i) satisfy the court there is a real risk of asset dissipation; and (ii) the matter needs to be dealt with ex parte urgently.


At present, all parties to the cases, of which the judgements can be enforced under Arbitration Ordinance or the common law, can apply for asset freezing order or other interim measures in Hong Kong. Although both courts and arbitral tribunals in Hong Kong are empowered to grant interim measures, in consideration of the orders from the arbitral tribunal generally has less coercive power than the orders from the court, applying for interim measures from the courts is always the preferred solution, in case of the respondent’s disobedience of such order.