電子郵件 網上辦公

                      邀兵請將  
                      您現在所在位置: 德衡商法網  >   律師視點  >  
                      段漢麟、潘丹丹:香港仲裁中的盤外招之——臨時措施
                      發布日期:2021-04-28
                      段漢麟
                      北京德和衡(深圳)律師事務所律師


                      潘丹丹
                      德和衡簡家驄永本金月(前海)聯營所律師


                      引  言




                      Introduction


                      隨著中國“一帶一路”合作戰略的不斷推進和深化,基于不同國家和地區之間法律文化的差異及避免不同司法區域內法律沖突的考量,越來越多的中國企業在與境外企業的商業合作中開始選擇國際仲裁作為爭端解決的方式。其中,香港憑借著其特有的政治和地理區位優勢,健全完善的國際仲裁法律制度和組織機構,英美法系的法律規則體系和文化背景,以及較為完善的內地與香港司法協助和執行制度,吸引著大量中外企業選擇其作為跨境商業合作爭議解決的仲裁地。然而,國際仲裁程序相對于國內仲裁程序更加繁瑣和復雜,相應的時間和經濟成本較為高昂,同時涉及到裁決跨司法區域的承認(認可)和執行,為了促成案件和解或者保障裁決能夠最終得以執行等目的,在國際仲裁中臨時措施程序的使用也愈發頻繁和廣泛,并且往往能夠實現事半功倍的效果。在香港仲裁案件中,了解并適時運用臨時措施,對于維護一方當事人的合法權益、保障仲裁程序的有效進行和確保最終的裁決結果得以執行極為重要。本文將結合本團隊在香港仲裁案件中的實踐經驗,從以下幾個方面對香港仲裁臨時措施程序進行簡要分析。


                      With the continuous advancement and deepening of China's "the belt and road initiative" cooperation strategy, based on the differences in legal culture between different countries and regions and the consideration of avoiding legal conflicts in different judicial regions, more and more Chinese enterprises began to choose international arbitration as the way of dispute settlement in their commercial cooperation with overseas enterprises. Among them, Hong Kong attracts a large number of Chinese and foreign enterprises to choose it as the arbitration venue for cross-border business dispute resolution, by virtue of its unique political and geographical advantages, sound international arbitration legal system and institutions, legal system and cultural background of common law system, and relatively advanced judicial assistance and enforcement system between the mainland and Hong Kong. However, compared with domestic arbitration procedures, international arbitration procedures are more cumbersome and complex, and the corresponding time and economic costs are relatively high. At the same time, it involves the recognition and enforcement of awards across judicial regions. In order to promote the settlement of cases or guarantee the final enforcement of awards, the use of interim measures in international arbitration is becoming more frequent and extensive, and it can often achieve twice the result with half the effort. In Hong Kong arbitration cases, it is very important to grasp and apply interim measures in time for safeguarding the rights and interests of one party, ensuring the effective conduct of arbitration proceedings and the implementation of the final award. Based on the practical experience of our team in Hong Kong arbitration cases, this essay will make a brief analysis of the interim measures procedures in Hong Kong arbitration from the following aspects.


                      一、香港仲裁臨時措施的類型





                      I. Types of Interim Measures for Arbitration in Hong Kong


                      在香港仲裁案件中,臨時措施是經一方當事人申請,仲裁庭在最終解決爭議的裁決作出前暫時指令一方作為或不作為的臨時指令或裁決。根據香港《仲裁條例》第35條的規定,臨時措施主要有以下四類:


                      In Hong Kong arbitration cases, interim measures refer to temporary orders or rulings that the arbitral tribunal temporarily instructs one party to act or not to act before the final award of disputes is made upon the application of one party. According to Article 35 of the Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong, interim measures mainly fall into the following four categories:






                      (a)在爭議解決前維持或恢復現狀;或

                      (a) Maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute;


                      (b) 采取措施以阻止現時的或臨近的、對仲裁程序本身的傷害或損害發生,或克制而不為可能導致這類傷害或損害的行為;或

                      (b) Take action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause, current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process itself;


                      (c) 保全財產,以確??蓳詧绦须S后作出的裁決;或

                      (c) Provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied; or


                      (d) 保全與解決爭議相關的重要證據。

                      (d) Preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute.




                      可見,香港仲裁中的臨時措施包括行為禁令措施、財產保全措施和證據保全措施等。


                      Therefore, the interim measures in Hong Kong arbitration include injunctions, property preservation measures and evidence preservation measures, etc.


                      實踐中,請求人的合法權益可能會受到來自第三方的侵害,由于仲裁協議的相對性,仲裁庭不能授予針對案件當事人以外的第三方的臨時措施,此點極大地限制了臨時措施的效用。在這一點上,向香港法院申請臨時措施更具優越性,已有成功的案例確認香港法院可以協助仲裁授予charbra injunction,針對的對象可以包括案件當事人以外的第三方。


                      In practice, the rights and interests of the requesting party may be infringed by a third party. Because of the relativity of the arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal cannot issue temporary measures against third parties other than the parties to the case, which greatly limits the effectiveness of temporary measures. In this regard, it is more advantageous to apply to Hong Kong courts for temporary measures. Successful cases have confirmed that Hong Kong courts can assist in arbitration to award charbra injunction, and the target can include third parties other than the parties to the case.


                      二、臨時措施申請時間





                      II. the Requesting Time of Temporary Measures


                      鑒于臨時措施的緊迫性特征,臨時措施通常會在第一次案件管理會議上提出。若情況緊急,甚至可在仲裁庭組成之前提出,屆時會由仲裁機構適用緊急仲裁程序指定一位臨時的緊急仲裁員審理是否授予臨時措施。


                      In view of the urgency of interim measures, interim measures are usually put forward at the first Case Management Conference(“CMC”). If in emergency, it can even be raised before the formation of the arbitration tribunal. Then the arbitration institution will apply the emergency arbitration procedure to appoint a temporary emergency arbitrator to hear whether to issue the interim measures.


                      請求方若想成功獲得臨時措施,需證明所涉事項無法等待至爭議最終裁決的作出之后解決。換言之,需證明禁令所涉事項的緊迫性。因此,臨時措施請求方應在仲裁程序啟動后盡早提出申請。臨時措施程序中,被請求方一方常見的抗辯點之一便是申請臨時措施的時間,如果請求方無合理理由未在仲裁程序較早的環節,比如收到仲裁申請書或者進行答辯、答復時提出,請求方關于緊迫性的主張便難以成立,不利于獲得仲裁庭認可。


                      If the requesting party wants to successfully obtain the grant of interim measures, he/she needs to prove that the settlement of the matters involved cannot wait until the final ruling of the dispute is made. In other words, it is necessary to prove the urgency of the matter involved. Therefore, the requesting party for temporary measures should request as early as possible after the arbitration procedure is initiated. In the procedure of interim measures, one of the common defenses of the opposing party is the time of requesting. If the requesting party fails to request it at an early stage of the arbitration procedure without reasonable cause, such as after receiving the application for arbitration or in its defense or reply, the requesting party's claim on urgency will be difficult to establish, which is not conducive to obtaining the grant of the arbitration tribunal.


                      然而,目前在實踐中并不是存在延誤就完全喪失獲得臨時措施的可能,關鍵是判斷請求方的延誤是否會導致授予臨時變得不公平不合理、影響另一方當事人的權益以及是否屬于對臨時措施程序的濫用。


                      However, at present, delay does not mean absolutely no chance of obtaining the interim measures in practice. The key is to judge whether the requesting party's delay will lead to unfair and unreasonable granting of the interim measures, affect the other party's interests (cause prejudice) and whether it is an abuse of the interim measures procedure.


                      三、授予臨時措施的條件





                      III. the Conditions for Granting the Interim Measures


                      通常,請求方應以書面的方式明確說明所申請的臨時措施是什么,所尋求保護的權利為何,以及相關的案情信息。仲裁庭在審查臨時措施申請時,首先會考慮根據仲裁協議以及相關的法律法規,仲裁庭是否有權審理與臨時措施相關的爭議,及是否有權就臨時措施申請作出相應的裁決。


                      Usually, the requesting party should clearly state in writing what the requested interim measures are, what the rights are sought to protect, and the relevant case background. When examining the request for interim measures, the arbitral tribunal will first consider whether the arbitral tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear disputes related to interim measures and make corresponding decisions on the interim measures according to the arbitration agreement and relevant laws and regulations.


                      根據香港《仲裁條例》第 35、36條 (其內容直接援引《聯合國國際貿易法委員會國際商業仲裁示范法》(UNCITRAL Rules)第17 、17A條),在香港仲裁案件中,仲裁庭有權審理并授予臨時措施。


                      According to Articles 35 and 36 of the Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong (which directly refer to Articles 17 and 17A of UNCITRAL Rules), in Hong Kong arbitration cases, the arbitral tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and grant interim measures.


                      除了管轄權之外,仲裁庭授予臨時措施的條件主要有以下三點:


                      In addition to jurisdiction, the conditions for the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures mainly include the following three points:






                      (a)不下令采取臨時措施可能造成損害,這種損害無法通過最終裁決判令損害賠償金的方式得到充分補償;

                      (a) Harm not adequately reparable by an award of damages is likely to result if the measure is not ordered; and


                      (b)不授予臨時措施所導致請求方受到的損害會遠遠大于準予采取這種措施而可能對措施所針對的當事人造成的損害;

                      (b) 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;


                      (c)根據索賠請求所依據的案情,請求方有勝訴的較大可能性。

                      (c) There is a reasonable possibility that the requesting party will succeed on the merits of the claim.



                      也即Risk of irreparable harm、Proportionality、Prima facie establishment of case on the merits。此為一般的國際仲裁臨時措施規則,得到了許多國家的法律認可,并被吸收進UNCITRAL Rules中。


                      That is, Risk of irreparable harm、Proportionality、Prima facie establishment of case on the merits. This is a general rule for interim measures in international arbitration, which has been legally recognized by many countries and absorbed into UNCITRAL Rules.


                      其中,比較值得關注的是第三項條件,即仲裁庭對于請求方勝訴可能性的判斷。臨時措施的申請一般都是在案件程序較為早期的階段,此時雙方往往還未進行充分的舉證和抗辯,仲裁庭對于是否授予臨時措施通常較為謹慎,因此在香港法下雖然提供擔保不是仲裁庭授予臨時措施的必要條件,但是仲裁庭通常會要求請求方提供相應擔保。同時,若請求方的主張及提供的證據無法使得案件勝訴可能性達到較為明顯和確信的程度,仲裁庭可能不會授予臨時措施,或者決定在雙方進行充分舉證和抗辯之后再行決定是否授予。由此可見,雖然香港國際仲裁中心《機構仲裁規則》(2018)第23.4條規定“…但對此概率的判斷不應影響仲裁庭此后作任何決定時的裁量”,但是實踐中,若能夠有效利用臨時措施程序并取得仲裁庭的支持,此時雙方對案件最終結果會有較為明確的預判,可以對被請求方一方施加有效的影響,達到促成案件盡早和解的目的,這也是在香港仲裁程序中向仲裁庭申請臨時措施的重要意義所在。


                      Among them, the third point is worthy of attention, that is, the arbitral tribunal's judgment on the possibility of the requesting party’s winning the case. The request for interim measures is generally at the early stage of the case procedure, at which time both parties have not yet fully proved and defended. Although security is not a necessary prerequisite under Hong Kong law, the arbitral tribunal will usually require the requesting party to provide. Meanwhile if the requesting party's claim and the evidence provided cannot make a prima facie of the case, the arbitral tribunal may not grant the interim measures, or decide to make rulings after both parties have fully proved and defended. Although article 23.4 of the 2018 Administered Arbitration Rules of Hong Kong International Arbitration Center stipulates that "…The determination on this possibility shall not affect the discretion of the arbitral tribunal in making any subsequent determination", in practice, if the interim measures can be effectively utilized and the interim measures is granted, both parties will have a relatively clear prediction of the final result of the case, so it can exert effective influence on the opposing party to promote the early settlement of the case. This is why it is of great significance to apply to the arbitral tribunal for a temporary measure in the arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong.


                      同時,臨時措施的可執行性以及有效性、當事人是否基于善意提出臨時措施申請等,也是仲裁庭考慮的因素。


                      Also, the enforceability and effectiveness of interim measures, whether the parties requested for interim measures in good faith, etc. are also factors considered by the arbitral tribunal.


                      四、臨時措施的執行





                      IV. Enforcement of Interim measures


                      香港仲裁程序中,仲裁庭無權直接執行其授予的臨時措施,而須交由執行地法院執行。實踐中,香港仲裁案件的執行地大多是香港法院或者內地法院。香港法院可依據香港《仲裁條例》的有關規定執行仲裁臨時措施。內地法院則根據最高院《關于內地與香港特別行政區相互執行仲裁裁決的安排》(“裁決安排”),不屬于裁決安排第7條規定的情形的,香港仲裁裁決可以在內地法院執行,但其中的仲裁裁決是否包括臨時措施的裁決存在爭議,有待規則的進一步明確和完善。


                      In Hong Kong arbitration proceedings, the arbitral tribunal has no right to directly enforce the interim measures granted by it, and the order or award must be submitted to the court of the place of enforcement. In practice, most arbitration cases in Hong Kong are executed in Hong Kong courts or mainland courts. Hong Kong courts can enforce the interim measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong. While mainland courts will enforce Hong Kong arbitration awards if they do not fall under the circumstances stipulated in Article 7 of the arbitral award arrangement according to the Supreme Court's Arrangement on Mutual Enforcement of Arbitration Awards between the Mainland and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("the arbitral award arrangement"). However, whether the arbitral award includes the interim measures is controversial, which needs further clarification and improvement of the rules.


                      除了向審理案件的仲裁庭提出臨時措施申請外,根據最高院《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》(“保全安排”),中國內地法院可以向香港仲裁當事人提供臨時措施協助。香港仲裁程序的當事人在最終仲裁裁決作出前,可以參照《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》、《中華人民共和國仲裁法》以及相關司法解釋的規定,向被申請人住所地、財產所在地或者證據所在地的內地中級人民法院申請保全。此時內地中級人民法院作出保全裁定的審理依據為內地的相關法律法規。根據香港國際仲裁中心(HKIAC)的最新統計,截止目前HKIAC已受理37例向中國內地法院提起的仲裁保全申請,其中23例申請由申請人直接向中級人民法院提交,14例系HKIAC應請求方請求向中級人民法院轉遞,已有24例保全申請獲內地中級人民法院裁定,其中22例財產保全申請在請求方提供擔保后裁定獲準,2例駁回。保全總金額約為100億人民幣。[1]


                      In addition to requesting interim measures to the arbitral tribunal of the case, according to the Hong Kong-Mainland Arrangement on Interim Measures (“Arrangement”), the courts in mainland can provide assistance for interim measures to arbitration parties in Hong Kong. Before the final arbitration award is made, the parties to the arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong may refer to the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China and relevant judicial interpretations to apply to the Intermediate People's Court of PRC (“IPCs”) where the respondent has his domicile, property or evidence. At this time, the trial basis for the preservation ruling made by the IPCs is the relevant laws and regulations of the PRC. According to the latest statistics of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC), to date, HKIAC has processed 37 applications made to the PRC courts for interim measures, among which 23 applications were submitted to the IPCs by the requesting party directly and 14 were submitted by HKIAC to the IPCs upon their request. Of the 24 decisions ruled by IPCs, 22 granted the applications for preservation of assets upon the requesting party’s provision of security and two rejected such applications. The total value of assets preserved amounts to RMB 10 billion.


                      結  語





                      Conclusion


                      香港仲裁程序中合理運用臨時措施,不僅可以針對正在進行的權利侵害、可能的財產轉移行為或損毀證據行為等情形發生時有效維護一方當事人的合法權益,而且更重要的是能夠對臨時措施被申請人方施加有效的壓力和影響,促使案件能夠達成有利于臨時措施申請人方的預期效果,節約大量的時間和經濟成本,保障案件得到充分執行,實現事半功倍的效果。


                      The rational use of interim measures in Hong Kong arbitration proceedings can not only effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of one party from the ongoing infringement of rights, potential property transfer or destroying evidence, but also exert effective pressure and influence on the opposing party, so as to promote the case to achieve the expected effect of the requesting party. It can also save a lot of time and economic costs, ensure the case to be fully executed and then twice as much can be accomplished with half the effort.


                      注釋

                      [1]參見:香港國際仲裁中心2020年度統計報告,https://www.hkiac.org/zh-hans/news/hkiac-releases-statistics-2020





                      作者簡介

                      段漢麟

                      北京德和衡(深圳)律師事務所律師

                      段漢麟律師先后畢業于南開大學和澳門大學,獲法學學士和法學碩士學位,中國執業律師。


                      手機13670218825; 

                      郵箱:duanhanlin@deheng.com

                      潘丹丹

                      德和衡簡家驄永本金月(前海)聯營所律師

                      潘丹丹律師是中國執業律師、美國紐約州執業律師,華東政法大學法學學士、美國威斯康星大學麥迪遜分校法學碩士。


                      手機:13392802396;

                      郵箱:pandandan@deheng.com


                      團隊簡介

                      潘丹丹和段漢麟律師團隊的主要專業領域為爭議解決與國際仲裁,工作語言為中文、英文。在國際仲裁領域,該團隊曾辦理過適用巴黎國際商會仲裁院、香港國際仲裁中心等機構仲裁規則的國際商事爭議案件、以及適用《聯合國國際貿易法委員會仲裁規則》的臨時仲裁案件。此外該團隊處理過多起在國內各級法院和仲裁機構進行的各類民商事案件,并為外資、外貿、房地產等各類型的企業提供常年法律顧問服務。


                      質控人簡介

                      唐志峰

                      高級合伙人

                      海外業務中心執行總監

                      tangzhifeng@deheng.com



                      Copyright@2016    版權所有    德衡商法網    免費服務監督熱線:    800-8600-880    400-1191-080

                      魯公網安備 37020202000804號     山東德衡律師事務所ICP備案號:魯ICP備05011736號    網站統計