Commercial factors in support of upholding arbitration clauses: Section 67 challenge

12 Фев

Если лондонский арбитражный трибунал не имел материально-правовой юрисдикции его решение может быть обжаловано в английском суде в соответствии со ст. 67 Закона «Об арбитраже» 1999 года. Арбитраж в Лондоне решил, что фрахтователь нарушил свои обязательства по чартерам, которые были обеспечены гарантией, таким образом, гарант обязан отвечать по гарантиям. Это решение было обжаловано в суде, поскольку гарантия не соответствовала законодательству Китайской Народной Республики, следовательно, и арбитражная оговорка, по мнению истца, должна быть признана недействительной, поскольку направлена на нарушение китайского права. Кроме того, запрет на иск в Китае должен быть отменен судом. Суд принял решение о том, что неисполнимость договора не влияет на исполнимость арбитражной оговорки в нем содержащейся. Это решение было принято в силу принципа разделения, закрепленного в ст. 7 Закона «Об арбитраже», заключающегося в том, в частности, что не может быть признана недействительной арбитражная оговорка только в силу того, что недействительным признан основной контракт, то есть контракт, в котором она содержится. Суд признал право арбитража рассматривать спор, причем такое рассмотрение спора не препятствовало арбитражному трибуналу в Лондоне выслушать аргументы в пользу незаконности гарантии (основного контракта). Такие слушания никак не нарушили законодательство Китая. Суд запретил апелляцию на это решение.

Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 allows a party to challenge an arbitration award on the ground that the tribunal did not have substantive jurisdiction.

In the case of  Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group v Golden Ocean and others [2013] EWHC 1063 (1/5/13)

The facts of this case were that in 2010 Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group (the Applicant in this matter) issued five letters of guarantee to Golden Ocean (the Respondent), each of which contained a clause providing for arbitration in London.  Under the guarantees the Applicant guaranteed the performance of the charterers under five charterparties in which the Respondent was the owner. The Respondent commenced arbitration proceedings in London against the Applicant alleging that the charterers had repudiated their obligations under the charterparties and therefore the Applicant was liable to the Respondent under the guarantees.

The Applicant made an application pursuant to s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, in which the Applicant sought to challenge the partial arbitration awards whereby the tribunal had exercised jurisdiction  asserting that it is illegal under Chinese law for a Chinese entity to grant guarantees to foreign entities without authorisation from a government authority and therefore the guarantees, including the arbitration clauses were unlawful as their intention was to break Chinese law. The guarantees did not and could not have such authorisation and any funds needed to meet the demand on such guarantees would have to be transferred form China in contravention of Chinese law. The Applicant argued that it would be contrary to public policy to enforce the guarantees on the grounds of their illegality, and that the anti-suit injunctions restraining proceedings in China should be discharged. The Applicant further contended that the decision of the arbitrators assuming jurisdiction did so wrongly, on the basis that the unenforceability of the guarantees was not relevant to jurisdiction.

HHJ Mackie QC (sitting in the Commercial Court) held that arbitration agreements were separable from the substantive contract. The arbitrators were correct to hold that the unenforceability of the substantive contract had no relevance to the enforceability  of the arbitration agreement. The doctrine of separability was enshrined in s 7 of the 1996 Act. The doctrine does not preclude that arbitration agreements could be declared void (but not on grounds that merely arise from the invalidity of the substantive contract). Accordingly, the arbitration tribunal was capable of hearing arguments relating to foreign law illegality. He held that giving effect to the agreements to arbitrate in London would not involve any acts that would be  illegal in China and he referred to the powerful commercial factors in support of upholding arbitration agreements.  He refused leave to appeal to the court of Appeal.

Источник: https://daviesbattersby.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/commercial-factors-in-support-of-upholding-arbitration-clauses/#comments