摘要：To appeal an arbitral award on question of law, the applicant has to show that the tribunal decision is “obviously wrong” or the tribunal decision to a question of general importance is “at least open to serious doubt”.要基于法律问题对仲裁裁决提出上诉，申请人必须证明仲裁庭的决定存在“明显错误”，或仲裁庭对一个具有普遍重要性的问题的决定“至少存在严重疑问”。在讨论原告的申请理据之前，法院强调必须谨慎处理因法律问题而对仲裁员的裁决所提出的上诉:“要注意尊重当事人通过仲裁解决争议的选择。

引　言

为了给读者提供更加专业与前沿的国际仲裁资讯，本智库致力于联合各类机构共同携手并进，并开设了“机构合作”栏目。之前，授权智库发布相关文章的机构有北京仲裁委员会、伦敦海事仲裁员协会（London Maritime Arbitrators Association，LMAA）、伦敦国际仲裁院（London Court of International Arbitration，LCIA）、伊朗知名律师事务所Ferdowsi Legal、英国顶尖的国际商事大律师事务所Quadrant Chambers。

近期，智库有幸又获得了英国希德律师行（Hill Dickinson）的支持，将陆续发布一系列该行律师撰写的仲裁文章。本文为该系列文章的第三篇，也是“香港2018年仲裁要案集锦”系列第二篇，来自该行香港办公室法务总监刘洋律师及其同事赖誉文律师。

申请对法律问题的上诉许可

Applications for leave to appeal on question of law

案件一：A等人诉房务委员会[2018]HKCFI 147

Disputes arose from the construction of provisions of the Special Conditions for Trade No. 10 of the Schedule of Rates (the “SOR”) published by the Housing Authority, which govern the measurement and valuation of Work Orders issued by Housing Authority for the replacement of existing window hinges for aluminium windows in housing estates, under 21 contracts made between the Housing Authority and the Plaintiffs. The Arbitrator ruled on 11 July 2017 that only three out of five rates in the SOR apply to the valuation of the relevant works.

根据房屋委员会与原告签订的21份合同，争议产生于房屋委员会所公布的《单价表》（简称SOR）第10号《贸易特别条件》中的规定，该规定规范房屋委员会发出的更换屋铝窗现有窗户铰链的工程订单的测量和估价。仲裁员于2017年7月11日裁定，SOR中规定的5项单价中只有3项可适用于相关工程的估价。

The Plaintiffs made an application for leave to appeal against the Partial Award and Reasons for Award made by the arbitrator in 26 arbitrations under section 6(1)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Ordinance. The parties agreed that the Work Orders should be valued according to the SOR, but there is disagreement as to which specific rates specified in the SOR should be used, in valuing the Relevant Works. This appeal is on a question of law, i.e. whether on the proper construction of the SOR, the relevant works should be measured and valued under the 3 rates identified in the Award, or under all the five rates inclusive.

根据《仲裁条例》附表2第6节第（1）段（b）条，原告对26宗仲裁案件中仲裁员作出的部分裁决及裁决理由申请上诉许可。双方均同意根据SOR对工程订单估价，但对于相关工程的估价应该适用SOR中的哪些具体价格无法达成一致。本上诉所涉及的法律问题是，无论SOR如何适当解释，相关工程应该适用裁决中所确定的其中3项单价进行测量与估价，还是适用列明的所有单价。

The Court summarised the applicable principles governing applications for leave to appeal against an arbitral award as that, leave to appeal is to be granted only if the Court is satisfied that, on the basis of the findings of fact in the award, the decision of the arbitral tribunal on the question is “obviously wrong”; or the question is one of general importance and the decision of the arbitral tribunal is “at least open to serious doubt”.

法院总结了适用于对仲裁裁决申请上诉许可的原则，即只有在法院基于裁决中认定的事实，认为仲裁庭关于该问题的裁决存在“明显错误”时，才授予上诉许可；或者是在一个普遍重要的问题上，仲裁庭的裁决“至少存在着严重的疑问”。

The Court agreed with the arbitrator’s reasoning and decision and held that the arbitrator’s decision was neither “obviously wrong” nor open to “serious doubt”. The Plaintiffs’ application was dismissed with costs to the Housing Authority.

该案中法院认可仲裁员的论证和裁决，认为仲裁员的裁决既没有“明显错误”，也没有“严重的疑问”。因此原告的申请被驳回，并向房屋委员会支付费用。

案件二：前田建设工业株式会社等诉鲍尔香港有限公司[2018]HKCFI 2001

Maeda Corporation made an application for leave to appeal against the 2nd Interim Award of the Arbitrator pursuant to section 6(1)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Arbitration Ordinance, with four questions of law identified. The four questions relate to:

根据《仲裁条例》附表2第6节第（1）段（b）条，前田公司对仲裁员的第二次临时裁决申请上诉许可，并指出了四个法律问题。这四个问题涉及:

(i)　idling deduction and the construction of paragraph 1(f) of Section C of the Sub-Contract Schedule of Prices;

停产期费用扣减及对分包合同价目表第3节第1段(f)条的解释；

(ii)　whether there was compliance with the condition precedents to give notice under the Sub-Contract;

是否符合分包合同规定的发出通知的先决条件；

(iii)　the founding levels and criteria under the Sub-Contract and whether there was variation under the Sub-Contract; and

分包合同下的沉降基准面和标准，以及分包合同下是否有变更；和

(iv)　the valuation of variation of works under the Sub-Contract.

分包合同下工程变更的估价。

Before going into the merits of the Plaintiffs’ application, the Court emphasised that the court dealing with an appeal against an arbitrator’s decision on a question of law had to approach the matter with care: “care to respect the choice of the parties to resolve this dispute by arbitration; care to respect the proper province of the tribunal; and care to have full regard of the views they felt able to reach, on matters of business sense or commercial sense that form an important dimension of the context within which a decision of law is to be reached on the true interpretation of the relevant contract”.

在讨论原告的申请理据之前，法院强调必须谨慎处理因法律问题而对仲裁员的裁决所提出的上诉:“要注意尊重当事人通过仲裁解决争议的选择；尊重仲裁庭自有的权限；并充分考虑到他们能就商业意识问题所达成合意，这些意见构成了正确解释有关合同并据此作出法律裁决的一个重要方面”。

Leave to appeal was granted to the second and fourth question, adopting the test of “whether the Arbitrator’s decision is obviously wrong".

法院适用了“仲裁员所作裁决是否明显错误”的标准，基于第二和第四个法律问题授予了上诉许可。

For the second question, there was non-compliance with the condition precedents to give notice under the Sub-Contract, i.e. the service of notice of intention to claim, and the written submission of the contractual basis of the claim. Further, a clause provides for the loss of right as a result of non-compliance with the notice requirement. In the absence of submission in writing, there cannot be a claim which can be made, or pursued in the arbitration.

对于第二个问题，当事人没有达成分包合同规定的发出通知的先决条件，即根据分包合同书面通知对方索赔意向并书面提交该索赔的合同依据。此外，还有条款规定了若不履行通知义务将导致权利丧失。在没有书面提交的情况下，不能在仲裁中提出索赔。

For the fourth question, concerning valuation of variation of works under the Sub-Contract, the Arbitrator’s decision, of allowing costs not incurred by the Defendant in his valuation ofthe variation as “fair and reasonable”, was at least open to serious doubt.

对于第四个问题，关于分包合同下工程变更估价，仲裁员认可被告的变更估价不产生任何费用“公平合理”的裁定至少存在着严重的疑问。

评论

To appeal an arbitral award on question of law, the applicant has to show that the tribunal decision is “obviously wrong” or the tribunal decision to a question of general importance is “at least open to serious doubt”.要基于法律问题对仲裁裁决提出上诉，申请人必须证明仲裁庭的决定存在“明显错误”，或仲裁庭对一个具有普遍重要性的问题的决定“至少存在严重疑问”。

It is not clear as to the meaning of these two phrases and there is little authority in Hong Kong to this issue. In Av Housing Authority, the Court applied the meaning of “obviously wrong” as discussed in the dicta of Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd (TheNema) [1982] AC 724(approved by Court of Final Appeal in Swire Properties v Secretary for Justice[2003] 6 HKCFAR 236), which can be summarised into a decision is obviously wrong when the judge finds there is no possible argument that might convince him that the arbitrator might be right. In other words, the applicant has to show that the arbitrator was plainly wrong. As for question of general importance, the test will be to show there is at least “a strong prima facie case” that the tribunal’s decision is wrong. The Court in the same case stated that “the assessment of whether the decision of the tribunal is at least open to serious doubt can be subjective, and different judges can reasonably come to different views.” In contrast in Maeda, the same judge has not explained the meaning of both phrases and referred to the principles as statedin Pioneer Shipping Ltd.

这两点的含义并不够明确，而且香港在这方面也很少有与问题相关的法律依据。在A等人诉房屋委员会案中，法院适用了先锋船务有限公司诉BTP Tioxide有限公司案[1982] AC 724判决附带意见书（由香港终审法院在太古地产诉律政司长（[2003]6HKCFAR236）案中批准）中所讨论的“明显错误”的含义，该含义可归纳为：当法官发现没有合理理由能使他相信仲裁员的裁决正确时，该裁决显然是错误的。换句话说，申请人必须证明仲裁员显然是错的。而对于具有普遍重要性的问题，检验标准是证明至少有“一个确凿的初步证据”能够表明仲裁庭的裁决是错误的。相同情况下，法官指出，“评判仲裁庭裁决是否至少存在着严重疑问的标准可能是主观的，不同的法官可以合理地得出不同的意见。”前田案则与之相反，同一名法官并没有对这两点的含义进行解释，而是引用了先锋船务有限公司案所确定的原则。

In the obiter dicta of Swire Properties, a reference to the UK Court of Appeal decision in Northern Pioneer was made in which it seems to suggest a more lenient threshold by “opening a door a little more widely to the granting of permission to appeal than the crack that was left by Lord Diplock [in The Nema]”.

太古地产案判决中的附带意见书提到了英国上诉法院在Northern Pioneer案中的判决，“给批准上诉些许更多的空间，而不是像Lord Diplock在BTP Tioxide有限公司案中采取的标准那样”，这似乎预示着批准上诉应有更宽松的门槛。

It remains unclear as to the meaning of these two thresholds and it is hoped that more authorities and guidelines will come to place in the near future.

目前对这两个标准的含义还不够清晰，希望不久的将来在该方面能涌现出更多的权威判例，或出台相应的指导方针。

刘洋

刘洋律师现在是英国希德律师行(Hill Dickinson)香港办公室的法务总监，同时拥有英格兰及威尔士和中国执业资格。刘律师专注于一般商业与航运争议解决业务，其处理的国际仲裁案件涉及伦敦海事仲裁协会条款、香港国际仲裁中心机构仲裁规则和UNCITRAL仲裁规则。

刘律师是上海海事大学经济管理学院客座教授及香港大学专业进修学院(HKU SPACE)的兼职讲师，负责教授由该院与英国普利茅斯大学合办的“海事运输与物流专业”相关课程。他是英国特许仲裁员协会会员、香港国际仲裁中心名单仲裁员、伦敦海事仲裁员协会支持会员和香港海事仲裁员协会会员。

另外，他是“Lloyd’s Shipping & Trade Law”写作的定期撰稿人，以及“Arbitration Law Monthly”的特约撰稿人。此外，刘律师还是河南省政协香港委员、天津市青联委员、香港特区政府海运港口局增补成员，以及香港与内地法律专业联合会副会长。

刘律师曾荣膺首届香港“十大杰出新香港青年”称号、入围“劳氏日报航运亚太大奖”的“新生代航运领袖”奖，入选《劳氏日报》“全球五大新生代航运领袖”、“2018年中国航运界十大杰出青年”、“2018年最受航运界关注的100位中国人”榜单。

赖誉文

赖律师于2015年获得香港律师执业资格。在加入希德律师行前，赖誉文曾于北京的律师事务所国际仲裁团队工作，其后加入香港一家领先的独立律师所，在该所享誉盛名的争议解决团队任职两年。

赖誉文的执业领域主要是复杂的民事诉讼，包括有关建筑工程的争议、股东争议、公司董事违反信托义务的争议、委任财产管理人的事宜、商业欺诈以及有关产品责任的争议。

赖誉文持有香港国际仲裁中心仲裁庭秘书资格。他精通英文、粤语和普通话。

英国希德律师行简介

希德律师行(Hill Dickinson)于1810年在利物浦成立，主力提供与航运、保险、贸易、能源和投资等相关的法律服务。该行现已成长为一间拥有一千多名成员的国际律师行，为不同行业的客户提供全面的服务。

航运法是希德律师行的重要业务。通过在香港、伦敦、比雷埃夫斯、新加坡、摩纳哥、利物浦、曼彻斯特及利兹的办公室之间的全球网络，该行能够全面地处理国际航运业务。

希德律师行香港办公室为航运及保险客户提供的全方位的航运法律服务。该行香港办公室能够就英国法律、香港法律和中国内地法律提供法律意见，经常为客户处理涉及船舶买卖、船舶建造和船舶融资等商业交易事宜，并参与商业合约的草拟工作。

免责声明

本公众号经合作机构授权发布文章，文章中的任何内容不代表本公众号的观点或立场。本公众号不对文章中的任何信息或观点之真实性、准确性、可靠性做出任何形式的保证，基于本文而产生的任何损失、纠纷、法律后果与本公众号无关。