首页 法律服务 法律问题 法律观点 法律常识 律师专线 律师诉讼 律师咨询 著名律师 法治动态 法治快讯 法治工作 法治经纬 法律法规 经济法类 行政法类 民事法类 新法速递 案例判例 法律咨询 司法解释

仲裁当事人关于法律适用问题的上诉得到法院部分支持

2019-05-02 06:09     来源:网络整理     编辑:中国网络法律信息网小编    人气:

仲裁当事人关于法律适用问题的上诉得到法院部分支持

(香港高等法院案例)

2019年4月9日,在Maeda Corporation and the other v. Bauer Hong Kong Limited, [2019] HKCFI 916一案中(判决请见:阅读原文),仲裁一方当事人就仲裁裁决中关于分包合同(Sub-Contract)的两项法律适用问题提出上诉,香港高等法院对此作出认定:(1)关于当事人是否按照合同约定发出通知的问题,法院认定,本案被告未能根据分包合同第21.2条发出适当的通知,故仲裁员关于允许被告“类似权利”主张的决定存在法律上的错误(“the Defendant had failed to give proper notice under Clause 21.2, and that the Arbitrator’s decision to allow the Defendant’s claim of “like rights” was wrong in law.”);(2)关于分包合同中工程变更的估价问题,法院认定,无法认定仲裁员在该问题认定上存在误导,亦无法认定其作出的决定超出了其自身可接受的解决办法的范畴(“it cannot be said that the Arbitrator had misdirected himself in law, or that his decision was outside the permissible range of solutions which were open to him.”);(3)综上,法院决定同意原告关于第一项法律适用问题的上诉,驳回其关于第二项法律问题的上诉(“The appeal on the first question of law on notice compliance is allowed. The appeal on the second question of law on variation valuation is dismissed.”)。

一、案情介绍

本案原告Maeda Corporation(以下简称“原告”)是以香港地铁公司(MTRC)为雇主的主合同的主要承建商,为香港至广州快线兴建隧道。原告根据合同将防渗墙工程分包给本案被告Bauer Hong Kong Limited(以下简称“被告”)。后双方放生争议,被告将争议提交至仲裁,仲裁庭作出仲裁裁决。

针对仲裁庭于2018年1月3日作出的第二份临时裁决(Interim Award)(修改于2018年3月3日),原告向香港高等法院请求准予其就该仲裁裁决法律问题提出上诉。2018年8月30日,香港高等法院作出决定同意该请求。

原告就上述仲裁裁决的两项法律适用问题提出上诉,分别为:(1)根据当事双方签订的《分包合同》第21.1条和第21.2条规定,本案被告是否按约定发出作为前提的通知;(2)关于《分包合同》工程变更的估价是否符合合同约定(“(1) whether there was compliance with the condition precedents to give notice under Clause 21.1 and 21.2 of the Sub-Contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant; and (2) the valuation of variation of works under the Sub-Contract.”)。

关于法律适用问题,被上诉人提出,根据判例Kwan Lee Construction v Elevator Parts Engineering [1997] HKLRD 965,对法律问题提出上诉的适当标准应当是考虑是否有必要干涉仲裁员的裁决,由于仲裁员显然在法律上误导了自己,援引了明显错误的法律规则,或原告须证明,虽然适用法律是正确的,但相关结论不是任何理性仲裁员可以得出的(“The Defendant submits that the proper test on an appeal on a question of law is to consider whether interference with the arbitrator’s award is necessitated because the arbitrator had obviously misdirected himself in law, by invoking legal principles which were self-evidently incorrect, and alternatively, the Plaintiffs must establish that although the law stated was correct, the decision reached was one that noreasonable arbitrator could reach.”)。

对此,法院表示认同,并根据判例Cosemar SA v Mariamararna Shipping Co Ltd (The“Matthew”) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323,要在事实与法律混合问题的上诉取得成功,就必须证明仲裁员的决定超出了其可接受的解决办法的范畴(“the Court held that for an appeal to succeed on a mixed question off act and law, it has to be shown that the decision of the arbitrator was outside the permissible range of solutions which were open to him.”);根据判例Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14,为了证明干涉仲裁员的决定是合理的,必须证明仲裁员在法律上存在误导,或者作出的决定不是任何理性仲裁员能够作出的(“to justify interference with an arbitrator’s award, it must be shown that the arbitrator had misdirected himself in law, or that the decision was such that no reasonable arbitrator could reach.”)。

二、法院认定

(一)关于被告是否按约定履行通知义务的问题

根据《分包合同》第21.1.2条约定,承包商有权在任何情况或事件下根据主合同获得额外付款或损失和费用的(“21.1.1 any circumstances oroccurrence as a consequence of which the Contractor is entitled to additional payment or loss and expense under the Main Contract…”)。

根据《分包合同》第21.2条约定,如果分包商希望保留根据第21.1条就额外付款或损失和费用提出索赔的权利,作为任何权利的先决条件,在根据第21.1条发出通知后28日(包含28日)内,分包商应以书面形式向承包商提交书面通知(“If the Sub-Contractor wishes to maintain its right to pursue a claim for additional payment or loss and expense under Clause 21.1, the Sub-Contractor shall as a condition precedent to any entitlement, within twenty eight (28) Days after giving of notice under Clause 21.1, submit in writing to the Contractor…”)。

相关阅读

精选图文
热门排行榜
  1. 公共法律打通服务群众“最后一公里”
  2. 在上海垃圾分类有了法律护航
  3. 大力推动法律职业共同体建设
  4. 没有任何法律要求企业安装“后门”
  5. 少数民族公民法律依据是什么?
  6. 提高法律意识 防范借贷风险
  7. 国企采购应如何适用法律?
  8. 媒体:律师提醒代孕父母了解相关法律
  9. 律师为女性当事人提供法律服务
  10. 赵宇案件获胜,彰显了法律的权威
Copyright 中国网络法律站点 闽ICP备05007636号 联系邮箱:sheng6665588@gmail.com