仲裁當事人提出的第68條和第69條異議得到英國法院支持
2019年2月19日，在Dakshu Patel v. Kesha Patel [2019] EWHC 298 (Ch)一案中（判決請見：閱讀原文），仲裁當事人根據《英國仲裁法》第68條和第69條，向英國法院提出上訴，主張仲裁員在適用法律上存在錯誤，以及在仲裁程序存在嚴重不規範，對此，英國法院作出認定：本案仲裁員在認定合夥協議是否變更問題上存在法律適用上的錯誤，以及在仲裁程序中存在嚴重不規範（「In these circumstances, in my judgement, the profit shares under the written partnership agreement,requiring equal division, remained unchanged and the arbitrator ought to have so found. The appeal in connection with this aspect under s.69 of Arbitration Act therefore succeeds.」「I wound have concluded that there had been a serious irregularity by the failure of the arbitrator to raise the matter and permit submission to be made regarding the form of variation he had in mind.」），故決定對仲裁裁決的結論部分進行修改（「Having concluded that the appeals based on section 69 succeed, I am satisfied that is appropriate for me to vary the Award in Paragraph 112…」）。
一、案情介紹
本案中，原告Dakshu Patel（以下簡稱「Dakshu」）與被告KeshaPatel（以下簡稱「Kesha」）之間原本為親戚關係。雙方於2012年在Purley以合夥關係開始牙醫執業（以下簡稱「Purley執業」），並各自提供部分貸款。2012年6月20日，雙方正式籤訂合夥協議（partnership agreement），約定均分損益。
2013年11月，二者又在Mitcham開始牙醫執業（以下簡稱「Mitcham執業」），並於2013年11月12日籤訂了合夥協議，同樣約定均分損益。但實際上，Dakshu並未參與到兩地的執業活動中，主要由Kesha運營和管理。在前兩年的收益分配中，Kesha獲得100%的收益。對此Dakshu僅通過合夥的會計進行了簡單的溝通，二者並在Purley合夥收益分配的帳目上簽字。
2015年1月，Kesha同Dakshu的外甥正式離婚，並進行了財產補償程序，其中包括Purley合夥的終止。在此期間，Dakshu拒絕由Kesha獲得二者之間合夥的所有收益，雙方在合夥帳目上難以達成一致，後雙方將爭議提交仲裁。
仲裁員作出仲裁裁決，認定由於Dakshu在合夥帳目上的籤字，導致當事雙方的書面合夥協議進行了變更，故認定Purley合夥協議中的100%收益Mitcham合夥協議中的65%收益由Kesha獲得，Dakshu則分別獲得0%收益和35%收益（「In the Award the arbitrator held the shares of profits and losses in the partnership agreement concerning the Purley Practice were held 0% for the Claimant and 100% for the Defendant. From paragraphs 87 and 101 of the Award it is apparent that the arbitrator arrived at this conclusion on the basis that there had been a variation of the written partnership agreement.」「In relation to the Mitcham Partnership the arbitrator held that the Claimant had a 35% share of the profits and losses and the Defendant a share of 65%. This was also held to be the result of variation of the written partnership agreement.」）。
根據《英國仲裁法》第69條，Dakshu請求法院準予其針對該裁決提出上訴（appeal），2018年8月20日，Snowden J.法官同意該上訴請求。
二、法院認定
根據《英國仲裁法》第69條規定，Dakshu主張，本案仲裁員基於其在Purley執業前兩年的收益分配帳目上簽字，就根據《合夥法》（thePartnership Act）第19條，作出雙方合夥協議發生變更以及Kesha應獲得合夥100%收益的認定（「This in on the basis that the arbitrator erred in law in concluding that the Claimant’s instructions to the partnership accountant that the Defendant was to have 100% of the profit in the first two years accounts and thereafter his execution of those accounts resulted in a variation of the partnership agreement by a course of conduct within the meaning of section 19 of the Partnership Act.」）；根據《英國仲裁法》第68條和第69條規定，Dakshu還主張，仲裁員對Mitcham執業的相關認定不僅存在法律適用上的錯誤，還存在嚴重的不規範（「The contention under section 68 is that the decision was the subject of serious irregularity. This is because the proposition that the parties had reached agreement on a variation of the partnership agreement in the course of their evidence was never advanced by the Defendant and arose for the first time in the Award. The Claimant contends he was not given aproper opportunity to address the point.」）。
（一）關於當事人提出的第69條異議
關於本案主要涉及的法律適用問題，即《合夥法》第19條的適用，法院提出，與一般合同法相似，第19條所針對的本質問題是當事人之間是否在客觀上達成共識，即就行為本身而言，要使之產生商定的變更，就需要客觀地作出明確的解釋，以表明變更當時加入現有合同條款的意圖（「The real issue to which section 19 is directed (in common with the law of contract more generally) is whether objectively the parties can be said to have reached a consensus. Where conduct is concerned, for this to result in an agreed variation, it would need objectively to be capable of unambiguous interpretation as evincing an intention to vary the existing contractual terms which was then acceded to.」）。根據Peat v Smith (1899) 5 TLR 306、Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd. [1971] 2 QB 71、Hardwick Game Farm vSuffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association[1969] 2 AC 31、Joyce v Morrissey [1999]EMLR 233以及Hodson v Hodson [2010]PNLR 8等判例提出了相似觀點，即當行為關於條款變更的客觀印象是明確且清楚的，則該案中被主張變更的條款應得以支持（「In other words the objective impression given by the conduct was clear and unambiguous and supported the variation or incorporation of the term contended for in that case.」）。
在本案中，法院認為，仲裁員顯然錯誤地忽略了明確和清楚行為的必要性，而該種行為可以合理推出當事雙方是否有意更改合夥協議（「Having regard to these principles, in my judgment it is clear that the arbitrator wrongly overlooked the need for clear and unambiguous conduct from which it could reasonably be concluded that there was an intention to vary the partnership agreement governing the Purley Practice.」）。
在考慮Dakshu提出的針對「Purley執業」第69條異議時，法院還補充道，如果根據情形有理由得出該種行為可能引起一種變化的結論，則仍有必要考慮相關情形以提供支持（「I should add that, had the circumstances warranted the conclusion that the conduct could potentially have given rise to a variation, it would still have been necessary for consideration to have been provided to support it.」）。在法院認定，在本案中，仲裁員本應認定相關書面合夥協議下的利潤份額（即要求平分損益）應保持不變。故當事人根據《英國仲裁法》第69條提出的關於「Purley執業」的上訴成功（「In these circumstances, in my judgment, the profit shares under the written partnership agreement, requiring equal division, remained unchanged and the arbitrator ought to have so found. The appeal in connection with this aspect under s.69 of the Arbitration Act therefore succeeds.」）。
針對與「Mitcham執業」有關問題的認定，法院認為，仲裁員在這一問題的結論也是不正確的。在法律問題上，沒有任何行為或協議可以說相當於裁決中與米查姆慣例有關的事項所引起的變化。因此，關於在合夥關係中平分損益的約定並未發生變更，故當事人根據《英國仲裁法》第69條在這方面提出的上訴也是成功的（「For these reasons, I conclude that the arbitrator's conclusions on this issue were also incorrect. There was no conduct or agreement that, as a matter of law, could be said to amount to a variation arising out of the matters identified in the Award in connection with the Mitcham Practice. The provisions for an equal share of profits in that partnership therefore also remained unvaried and the appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act therefore succeeds on this aspect also.」）。
（二）關於當事人提出的第68條異議
由於上述的認定結論，嚴格意義上並無必要再考慮根據《英國仲裁法》第68條提出的上訴。法院認為，如果有必要考慮該問題，則認定仲裁員未能提出這一問題並允許當事人就條款變更形式提出意見，這構成嚴重不違規。如果不採取其他措施，則不允許原告有公平的機會處理對其不利的問題，這違反了《英國仲裁法》第33條的規定（「This makes it strictly unnecessary to consider the appeal under section 68 of the 1996 Act. However, had it been necessary to do so, I would have concluded that there had been a serious irregularity by the failure of the arbitrator to raise the matter and permit submissions to be made regarding the form of variation he had in mind. To act otherwise did not allow the Claimant a fair opportunity to address a point that was to be taken against him, contrary to section 33 of the Arbitration Act.」）。
三、評論
由本公眾號推送的其他有關《英國仲裁法》第68條和第69條異議的英國案例可知，上述兩類仲裁裁決異議的認定門檻相對較高，在眾多提出上述異議的案件中，只有一小部分主張能得到法院的支持。而本案就屬於少有的得到法院支持的第68條、第69條異議案件。此外，本案法官在極為罕見的決定直接對仲裁裁決的重要結論部分進行修改，以糾正仲裁員就相關法律的錯誤適用。由此可見，法院認為本案仲裁員對《合夥法》的認定存在明顯錯誤，應當予以明確糾正。
歡迎關注仲裁早新聞，每天三分鐘，知曉仲裁事！
「仲裁一點通」即將開播，敬請持續關注！