譯者 | 莫浣琳 上海交通大學 法律碩士
一審 | 鄧雅元 復旦大學 本科
二審 | peipei 布里斯托大學 LLM
編輯 | 陳珏雯 西南政法大學 本科
鄭梓萱 澳門科技大學 LL.B
責編 | 林靖珊 中國政法大學 研究生
Enka訴Chubb案：國際仲裁協議適用法規則的“三步審查法”
2020年，英國最高法院在Enka訴Chubb案（以下簡稱“Enka案”）中作出終審判決，明確了仲裁協議適用法規則中的“三步審查法”：
（1）如果仲裁協議有明確的適用法約定，那麼該法為仲裁協議適用法；
（2）如果仲裁協議沒有明確的適用法約定，但當事人明示或默示選擇了主合同準據法，那麼主合同準據法為仲裁協議適用法；
（3）如果仲裁協議沒有明確的適用法約定，當事人也沒有選擇主合同準據法，那麼與仲裁協議有“最密切聯絡”的法律（the law most closely connected to the arbitration agreement）為仲裁協議適用法。英國最高法院在Enka案中的多數意見認為，仲裁協議“最密切聯絡法”的預設規則（default rule）是，仲裁地法系與仲裁協議有著“最密切聯絡”的法律，而少數意見則認為與主合同有“最密切聯絡”的法律才是所謂的“最密切聯絡法”。
（圖片來源於網路）
Enka案判決所確立的仲裁協議適用法規則中的“三步審查法”，在普通法系國家和地區中產生了重要影響。譬如，2023年香港高等法院在中鐵香港公司案[1]中就沿用了Enka案的裁判觀點。以下是英國最高法院釋出的Enka案摘要（summary）譯文[2]。
[1]China Railway (HK) v Chung Kin ([2023] HKCFI 132).
[2]This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document.
案情概述
The central issue on this appeal is how the governing law of an arbitration agreement is to be determined when the law applicable to the contract containing it differs from the law of the “seat” of the arbitration, the place chosen for the arbitration in the arbitration agreement.
本案的爭議焦點是，當主合同的準據法不同於主合同項下仲裁協議約定的仲裁地法時，應如何確定仲裁協議的適用法。
On 1 February 2016, a power plant in Russia was severely damaged by fire. The appellant Russian company (“Chubb Russia”) had insured the owner of the power plant (“the owner”) against such damage. The owner had entered into a contract with another company (“the head-contractor”), in relation to construction work to be carried out at the plant. In turn, the head-contractor engaged the respondent (“Enka”), a Turkish engineering company, as a sub-contractor in the construction project. The contract made between the head-contractor and Enka included an agreement that disputes would be determined through arbitration proceedings in London.
2016年2月1日，俄羅斯一家發電廠因火災嚴重受損。此前，上訴人俄羅斯夏布公司（“Chubb Russia”）已為發電廠業主投保了火災保險。該業主與總承包商簽訂了一份電廠施工合同。總承包商僱用了被告恩卡公司（“Enka”），一家土耳其工程公司，作為建築專案的分包商。總承包商與恩卡公司簽訂的合同包括一項仲裁協議，約定雙方因合同產生的爭議將在倫敦透過仲裁程式解決。
（圖片來源於網路）
In May 2014, the head-contractor transferred its rights and obligations under the contract to the owner. After the fire in February 2016, Chubb Russia paid an insurance claim by the owner and, by doing so, assumed any rights of the owner to claim compensation from third parties, including Enka, for damage caused be the fire.
2014年5月，總承包商已經將合同規定的權利和義務轉讓給了業主。2016年2月火災發生後，夏布公司向業主進行了保險賠付，承繼了業主在合同項下的全部權利，故而有權針對火災造成的損失向包括恩卡公司在內的第三方追償。
In May 2019, Chubb Russia brought a claim against Enka in Russia. In response, in September 2019 Enka brought an arbitration claim in the High Court in London arguing that, by proceeding in the Russian court, Chubb Russia was in breach of the arbitration agreement and seeking an anti-suit injunction to restrain Chubb Russia from pursuing the Russian claim. At first instance, the High Court dismissed Enka’s claim on the primary ground that the appropriate forum to determine to scope of the arbitration agreement was the Russian court.
2019年5月，夏布公司在俄羅斯法院向恩卡公司提起訴訟。恩卡公司於2019年9月向倫敦高等法院（High Court in London）起訴，主張夏布公司在俄羅斯法院起訴違反了仲裁協議的約定，並請求法院對夏布公司實施禁訴令，以限制其在俄羅斯提起訴訟。倫敦高等法院駁回了恩卡公司的一審訴訟請求，理由是確定仲裁協議範圍的適當機構應當是俄羅斯法院而非倫敦高等法院。
（圖片來源於網路）
On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the judge’s decision. It held that, unless there has been an express choice of the law that is to govern the arbitration agreement, the general rule should be that the arbitration agreement is governed by the law of the seat, as a matter of implied choice; that there was no express choice of law in this case and that the arbitration agreement was therefore governed by English law; and that it was appropriate to grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain Chubb Russia from pursuing the Russian claim. Chubb Russia appeals to the Supreme Court.
然而，在上訴階段，上訴法院推翻了一審判決，其認為除非雙方對仲裁協議適用法作出了明確的選擇，否則按照一般規則，應當將仲裁地法視為仲裁協議適用法，這是一種默示的法律適用推定。由於本案當事人未明確約定仲裁協議適用法，根據前述一般規則，仲裁協議應當適用仲裁地法，即英格蘭法律。上訴法院同時認為，簽發禁訴令以限制夏布公司向俄羅斯起訴是合理的。二審判決作出後，夏布公司向英國最高法院提出上訴。
判決全文
By a majority the Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. The judgment is given by Lord Hamblen and Lord Leggatt with whom Lord Kerr agrees. Lord Burrows delivers a dissenting judgment, with which Lord Sales agrees. Lord Sales also gives his own judgment.
英國最高法院以多數票駁回上訴請求，維持了上訴法院的判決。該項判決由Hamblen和Leggatt兩位法官作出，Kerr法官表示同意他們的意見，而Burrows法官和Sales法官則持反對意見。
Where an English court must decide which system of law governs an arbitration agreement, it should apply the English common law rules for resolving conflicts of laws rather that the provisions of the Rome I Regulation, as the latter excludes arbitration agreements from its scope. According to the common law rules, the law applicable to the arbitration agreement will be: (i) the law expressly or impliedly chosen by the parties; or (ii) in the absence of such choice, the system of law “most closely connected” to the arbitration agreement.
英國最高法院的最終判決如下：英國法院在確定仲裁協議適用法時，應當適用解決法律衝突問題的英國普通法規則，而非《羅馬條例I》，因為後者將仲裁協議排除在其適用範圍之外。根據普通法規則，仲裁協議的適用法應當是(i)當事人明示或默示選擇的法律；或(ii)在當事人沒有選擇的情況下，與仲裁協議有“最密切聯絡”的法律。
In determining whether the parties have made a choice of law, the court should construe the arbitration agreement and the contract containing it by applying rules of contractual interpretation of English law as the law of the forum.
在確定當事人是否選擇了仲裁協議適用法時，法院應運用法院地法，即英格蘭法律中的合同解釋規則，對仲裁協議以及包含該協議的主合同進行法律解釋。
Where the parties have not specified the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, but they have chosen the law to govern the contract containing the arbitration agreement, this choice will generally apply to the arbitration agreement.This general rule encourages legal certainty, consistency and coherence while avoiding complexity and artificiality.
如果當事人未明確約定仲裁協議適用法，但約定了主合同準據法，那麼主合同準據法將適用於主合同項下的仲裁協議。這是確定仲裁協議適用法的一般規則，能夠提升法律的確定性、一致性和連貫性，同時避免法律適用的複雜性和任意性。
The Court of Appeal was wrong to find that there is a “strong presumption” that the parties have, by implication, chosen the law of the seat of the arbitration to govern the arbitration agreement. Any overlap between the law of the seat and that of the arbitration does not justify such a presumption. While a choice of seat can lead to such an inference in some cases, the content of the Arbitration Act 1996, particularly section 4(5), does not support such a general inference. Where there is no express choice of law to govern the contract, a choice of the seat of the arbitration does not by itself justify an inference that the contract (or the arbitration agreement) is intended to be governed by the law of the seat.
上訴法院認為存在一種“強有力的推論”（“strong presumption”），即雙方默示選擇了仲裁地法作為仲裁協議的適用法。這種推定是錯誤的。仲裁地法與主合同準據法之間的一致性並不能構成該項推論的正當理由。雖然在某些情況下，當事人對仲裁地的選擇可能會導致此種推論的發生，但根據《1996年仲裁法》第4條第(5)項的規定，此種推論不能成立。具言之，如果當事人沒有明示選擇主合同準據法，那麼仲裁地的選擇本身亦不構成主合同（或仲裁協議）擬受仲裁地法約束推論的正當理由。
（圖片來源於網路）
Where the parties have made no choice of law to govern the arbitration agreement, either specifically or by choosing the law which is to govern the contract as a whole, the court must determine the law with which the arbitration agreement is most closely connected.
如果當事人沒有明確仲裁協議適用法，也沒有約定主合同準據法，那麼法院必須確定與仲裁協議關係最密切的法律（將其作為仲裁協議的適用法）。
In general, the arbitration agreement will be most closely connected with the law of the seat of arbitration. This default rule is supported by the following considerations: (i) the seat is where the arbitration is to be performed (legally, if not physically); (ii) this approach maintains consistency with international law and legislative policy; (iii) this rule is likely to uphold the reasonable expectations of contracting parties who specify a location for the arbitration without choosing the law to govern the contract; and (iv) this approach provides legal certainty, allowing parties to predict easily which law the court will apply in the absence of choice.
一般而言，仲裁協議與仲裁地法的關係最為密切。支援這一預設規則（default rule）的原因主要包括：(i)仲裁地是仲裁履行地（即便不是物理意義上的仲裁履行地，也屬於法律意義上仲裁履行地）；(ii)該項規則與國際法和國內立法政策相一致；(iii)對於僅約定仲裁地而未選擇主合同準據法的合同當事人而言，該項規則大機率符合他們的合理期望；(iv)該項規則有助於實現法律的確定性，使當事人在沒有選擇準據法的情況下，更容易預測法院將適用何種法律。
The majority holds that the contract in this case contains no choice of the law that is intended to govern the contract or the arbitration agreement within it. In these circumstances the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement is governed by the law of the chosen seat of arbitration, as the law with which the dispute resolution clause is most closely connected . The seat of the arbitration is London. Therefore, the majority upholds the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that English law governs the arbitration agreement, albeit for different reasons.
鑑於此，法庭多數意見認為，由於案涉合同未載明主合同的準據法，也不涉及主合同項下的仲裁協議適用法，此時仲裁協議的效力和範圍應受仲裁地法約束。這是因為，仲裁協議作為合同中的爭議解決條款，與仲裁地法的關係最為密切。本案的仲裁地是倫敦。因此，多數意見支援上訴法院作出的仲裁協議應適用英國法律的結論，只是得出該項結論的依據和上訴法院有所區別。
（圖片來源於網路）
Chubb Russia does not dispute that, if the arbitration agreement is governed by English law, it was legitimate for the Court of Appeal to grant an anti-suit injunction in this case. The Supreme Court, however, affirms the Court of Appeal’s decision that, in principle, it makes no difference whether the arbitration agreement is governed by English or foreign law, as the inquiry in both cases remains the same: whether there been a breach of the agreement and, if so, whether it is just and convenient to grant an injunction to restrain that breach.
在禁訴令問題上，上訴人夏布公司並不否認，如果仲裁協議適用英國法律，那麼上訴法院在本案中籤髮禁訴令是合法的。然而，英國最高法院維持了上訴法院的判決：原則上，在解決禁訴令問題時，仲裁協議適用英格蘭法律或其他法律並無區別，因為無論適用英國法還是外國法，法庭需要進行同樣的調查，即調查是否存在違反仲裁協議的行為；如果存在，簽發禁訴令以限制該項行為是否是公平而便利的。
While there may be circumstances in which it would be appropriate to await a decision of a foreign court before granting an injunction, deference to foreign courts should generally give way to upholding the importance of the parties’ bargain.
雖然在某些情況下等待外國法院作出判決後再簽發禁訴令可能更加合適，但在更多時候，尊重外國法院判決應當讓位於雙方當事人就合同糾紛爭議解決方式的約定。
Lord Burrows and Lord Sales agree with the majority that, if the parties have expressly or impliedly chosen the law of the contract, this choice applies to the arbitration agreement. They dissent on what the default position should be in the absence of such choice.
Burrows和Sales法官同意多數法官的如下觀點：如果當事人明示或默示選擇了主合同準據法，則該項法律選擇將同樣適用於仲裁協議。但他們對於當事人沒有作出此項選擇時，應採取何種預設規則持不同意見。
They consider that it should be that the law with which the main contract is most closely connected governs the arbitration agreement, as this is the law with which in their view the arbitration agreement is also most closely connected. They also dissent on whether the parties have in this case chosen the law that is to govern the contract. In their view, the parties impliedly chose Russian law to govern the construction contract and also, therefore, the arbitration agreement.
他們認為，如不能確定主合同準據法的明示或默示選擇，那麼與主合同有最密切聯絡的法律應為仲裁協議適用法，因為與主合同有最密切聯絡的法律也是與仲裁協議有最密切聯絡的法律。他們還對本案中當事人是否選擇了主合同準據法持不同意見。他們認為，當事人默示選擇了俄羅斯法律作為主合同的準據法，因此俄羅斯法律是仲裁協議的適用法。
（圖片來源於網路）
They agree with the majority that whether it is appropriate to grant an anti-suit injunction does not depend on what law governs the arbitration agreement but only on whether pursuing the foreign proceedings is a breach of that agreement. As they conclude that Russian law governs the arbitration agreement, they would remit the question of whether there has been a breach of the arbitration agreement so as to justify the grant of an anti-suit injunction to the Commercial Court.
關於禁訴令問題，他們同意多數法官的觀點，即簽發禁訴令是否適當並不取決於仲裁協議的適用法，而取決於提起外國訴訟是否違反了仲裁協議的約定。他們最終得出仲裁協議應適用俄羅斯法律的結論，同時提出將是否存在違反仲裁協議的行為以及是否能據此簽發禁訴令的問題移交一審法院商事法庭（Commercial Court）處理。
原文連結：
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0091-press-summary.pdf
判決書全文：https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0091-judgment.pdf