英国法院：适用禁诉令与全球冻结禁令的区别

英国法院于2018年6月作出三个与仲裁禁令有关的重要判决，可以看出采取禁诉令和全球冻结禁令的差别，以及脱欧后英国仲裁的影响。

针对欧盟内以及之外的法院诉讼的禁诉令

第一份判决于2018年6月签发，为 Nori Holdings Limited and others v Public Joint-Stock Company Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation [2018] EWHC案。该判决涉及一项限制一方当事人在塞浦路斯和俄罗斯进行法院诉讼的禁令，因其违反伦敦仲裁条款。

塞浦路斯属于欧盟，在涉及该欧盟国家的禁诉令中，主要案例是West Tankers Inc v Allianz SpA (Case C-185/07) [2009] AC 1138案。欧盟法院裁定，一项旨在阻止另一欧盟国家的法院裁定是否有管辖权的命令与《欧盟条例》第44/2001号不符，因而违法欧盟法律。然而，Nori案的申请人认为West Tankers案不能阻止英国法院签发禁诉令，因为第44/2001号条例已经在2012年修订，并且欧盟总顾问（Advocate General）在Gazprom (Case C-536/13)[2015] 1 WLR 4937案中认为此次修订推翻了West Tankers案的判决。法官审查法规的变化，并得出结论认为该案并未使West Tankers案的判决失效，因而让塞浦路斯的法院决定如何处理诉讼程序。

然而，就俄罗斯诉讼程序而言，这一立场有所不同。俄罗斯不属于欧盟，所以不适用West Tankers案。法官认为英国法院可以因违反在英国仲裁的协议而批准禁令，命令当事人不得在非欧盟国家进行法院诉讼，并且通常会批准禁令，除非存在不这样做的“充分理由”。因为没有这样的理由，法官批准了限制被申请人在俄罗斯进行诉讼的禁令。

禁诉令的举证责任

两天后，作出另一份有关禁诉令的判决：Perkins Engine Company Limited v Mohammed Ghaddar and another [2018] EWHC 100案。该案也涉及一份为支持伦敦仲裁而请求限制在非欧盟国家（黎巴嫩）进行法院诉讼的禁令。法官重申，英国法院通常会批准此种禁令，除非在其他法院诉讼的当事人有充分理由证明程序应准予继续。但本案没有这样的理由。

然而，复杂的是仲裁条款并不明确。该条款指出，只有在英国和其他被告所在国没有“互惠执行程序”时，争议才应当提交仲裁。申请人认为争议必须提交仲裁，因为英国和黎巴嫩之间没有“互惠执行程序”，两国之间没有与判决执行有关的条约。另一方面，被申请人辩称存在这样的程序，因为黎巴嫩法院的判决可以通过普通法在英国强制执行，同时英国判决可以通过黎巴嫩的执行程序在黎巴嫩强制执行。

法官认为，申请禁诉令的一方当事人必须证明“非常有可能”存在违反仲裁条款的行为，且争议必须提交仲裁。然而他更倾向于接受申请人的观点，因为该条款涉及黎巴嫩和整个英国之间的互惠执行，而不是指黎巴嫩和英格兰，意味着该条款涉及两个国家之间的条约。因不存在这样的条约，该条款要求适用仲裁，并且被申请人在黎巴嫩提起诉讼已违反该条款的规定。因此法官批准了禁令。

全球冻结禁令

最后一份判决于2018年6月20日作出，是Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Limited [2018] EWHC 1539案，该判决涉及一份防止资产转移的全球禁令申请，该申请是执行在巴黎作出的ICC裁决的努力的一部分。基础争议与塞舌尔群岛一家酒店的建设有关，申请人试图阻止被申请人将资产从塞舌尔群岛转移。

法官认为，尽管英国法院有权授予此种命令，但仅针对特殊案件。被申请人或争议应当与英国有充分联系，或存在其他充分因素如国际诈骗。法官决定不授予冻结命令，因为本案与英国的联系非常有限且不存在国际诈骗。法官还认为，塞舌尔法院可以冻结在塞舌尔的资产，如果其认为适当；如果英国法院签发一项影响塞舌尔资产的冻结禁令，英国和塞舌尔的命令可能发生冲突，这违反了国家之间的礼让原则。

评 论

从这些判决可得出两个主要结论。首先，禁诉令和全球冻结禁令在支持仲裁时是两种截然不同的方法。英国法院通常针对欧盟之外的法院诉讼批准禁诉令，而不等待其他国家的法院对管辖权作出裁定，除非有充分的理由不这样做；但因裁定可能发生冲突，除非情况特殊，否则英国法院不会批准全球冻结禁令。

这一明显的矛盾可能得到解决，通过注意到英国法院对英格兰仲裁的控制，就如同塞舌尔法院（例如）对所属地的实物资产的控制一样。英国法院将签发禁诉令以保护前者，但对于后者，则遵从塞舌尔法院的判决。Nori案的法官也强调，当存在有效的仲裁条款时，对抗国外程序的禁诉令与暂停或中止英国国内程序的裁定有关：它们是“一枚硬币的正反两面”。因此，除某些有限情形外（比如当仲裁条款无效或者不可执行时），英国法院将暂停国内法院诉讼并将争议提交仲裁。同样，除某些有限情形外，他们将签发限制国外程序的命令。

第二个结论是，这些案件表明英国脱欧后仲裁依然可以得到保护。英国脱欧后，除非实施与《欧盟条例》第44/2001号相似的制度，否则英国法院将不再适用West Tankers 案。这意味着，限制在欧盟国家法院诉讼的申请，将与如今限制非欧盟国家法院诉讼的申请，得到同等对待，即如果申请人证明仲裁条款已被违反，英国法院将批准禁诉令，除非被申请人有充分的理由证明不应批准。

【英文原文】

There were three important judgments from the English courts in June 2018 concerning arbitration-related injunctions, showing the different approaches to anti-suit injunctions and to worldwide freezing injunctions, and indicating what English arbitration will look like after Brexit.

Anti-suit injunctions against court proceedings inside and outside the EU

The first judgment, issued on 6 June 2018, was Nori Holdings Limited and others v Public Joint-Stock Company Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation [2018] EWHC 1343. This concerned an injunction to restrain a party from pursuing court proceedings in Cyprus and Russia, in breach of a London arbitration clause.

Cyprus is in the EU, and where anti-suit injunctions involving EU countries are concerned, the leading case is West Tankers Inc v Allianz SpA (Case C-185/07) [2009] AC 1138. There, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that an order which sought to prevent a court in another EU country from deciding whether it had jurisdiction was incompatible with EU Regulation No. 44/2001 and therefore contrary to EU law.However, the claimantin Nori argued that West Tankers no longer stopped an English court issuing an anti-suit injunction because Regulation No.44/2001 had been revised in 2012, and the EU Advocate General had opined in the Gazprom case (Case C-536/13) [2015] 1 WLR 4937 that this revision overturned West Tankers. The judge reviewed the changes to the Regulation and concluded that they did not invalidate West Tankers. As a result, he had to leave it to the courts in Cyprus to decide what to do about the proceedings there.

The position was different, however, in relation to the Russian proceedings. Russia is outside the EU so West Tankers did not apply. The judge observed that the English courts can grant an injunction ordering a party not to pursue court proceedings started in a country outside the EU, in breach of an English-seated arbitration agreement, and would ordinarily do so unless there were "strong reasons" not to.Since there were no such reasons here, he granted an injunction restraining the defendant from pursuing the Russian proceedings.

Burden of proof for anti-suitinjunctions

Another judgment about an anti-suit injunction was issued just two days later: Perkins Engine Company Limited v Mohammed Ghaddar and another [2018] EWHC 100. This also concerned an application for an injunction to restrain court proceedings in a non-EU country (Lebanon), in support of a London-seated arbitration. The judge repeated that the English courts would ordinarily grant such an injunction unless the party suing in the other forum can show strong reasons why it should be permitted to continue.There were no such reasons here.

The complication, however, was that the arbitration clause was unclear. It stated that a dispute would be referred to arbitration only if there were"no reciprocal enforcement procedures between the UK and the country where [the defendant] is located", i.e. between the UK and Lebanon. The claimant argued that the dispute must be referred to arbitration because there were no "reciprocal enforcement procedures" between the UK and Lebanon, there being no treaty between them relating to enforcement of judgments. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that there were such procedures because Lebanese court judgments can be enforced in England via the common law, while English judgments can be enforced in Lebanon using the exequatur procedures there.

The judge said that a party applying for an anti-suit injunction has to demonstrate "to a high degree of probability" that there had been a breach of the arbitration clause and that the dispute must be referred to arbitration. He preferred the claimant's arguments, however, particularly because the clause referred to reciprocal enforcement between Lebanon and the UK as a whole, and not just Lebanon and England, which suggested that the clause was referring to a treaty between the two states. Since there was no such treaty, the clause required a reference to arbitration, and the defendant had breached that clause by starting proceedings in Lebanon. The judge therefore granted the injunction.

Worldwide freezing injunctions

The final judgment, Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Limited [2018] EWHC 1539 was issued on 20 June 2018. It concerned an application for a worldwide injunction preventing the movement of assets, as part of efforts to enforce an ICC arbitration award which had been made in Paris. The underlying dispute related to the construction of a hotel in Seychelles, and the claimant was trying in particular to prevent the defendant from moving assets out of Seychelles.

The judge observed that, while the English courts had jurisdiction to grant such an order, they would only do so in exceptional cases. There would have to be a strong link between the defendant and England or between the dispute and England, or there would have to be some other strong factor such as international fraud. The judge decided not to grant a freezing order because there was only a limited link with England here (and there was no international fraud). He also said that the Seychellois courts could freeze assets in Seychelles, if they considered it appropriate to do so; and if the English courts issued a freeing injunction that affected assets in Seychelles, there was the risk of conflicting orders in England and Seychelles, contrary to the principle of comity between nations.  

Comment

Two main observations can be made about these judgments. Firstly, there is an apparently inconsistent approach to anti-suit injunctions and worldwide freezing injunctions in support of arbitration. The English courts will ordinarily grant an anti-suit injunction against court proceedings outside the EU, unless there are strong reasons not to, without waiting for a decision on jurisdiction from the court in the other country; but they will not grant a worldwide freezing injunction, save in exceptional circumstances, because of the risk of conflicting decisions.

This apparent contradiction might be resolved by noting that the English courts exercise control over arbitration in England just as the courts in (for example) Seychelles exercise control over physical assets there. The English courts will issue anti-suit injunctions to protect the former, but will defer to the Seychelles courts in relation to the latter. The judge in Nori also highlighted that an anti-suit injunction against foreign proceedings is linked to a decision to stay or suspend domestic English proceedings when there was a valid arbitration clause: they are "opposite and complementary sides of a coin". Thus, just as the English courts will stay domestic court proceedings and refer disputes to arbitration in all but certain limited circumstances (such as when the arbitration clause is invalid or inoperative),so they will issue orders to restrain foreign proceedings in all but certain limited circumstances.

The second observation is that these cases indicate the protection available to English arbitration post-Brexit. After the UK leaves the EU,unless a regime is put in place that is similar to EU Regulation 44/2001, West Tankers will no longer apply to the English courts. That means an application to restrain court proceedings in an EU country will be treated in the same manner as an application to restrain court proceedings outside the EU is treated now: if the claimant shows that an arbitration clause has been breached, the English courts will grant an anti-suit injunction unless the respondent shows that there are strong reasons not to do so.

来源： 临时仲裁ADA，不代表本会意见