在一项日期为 7 十二月 2021 在 Tenke Fungurume Mining S.A. v Katanga Contracting Services S.A.S. [2021] EWHC 3301 (通讯) (“Tenke v. Katanga”), 关于根据本节提出的挑战 68 的 1996 仲裁法 (“仲裁法”) 为了 严重违规, 英国高等法院维持 2021 坐落于伦敦, ICC仲裁最终裁决, in which Tenke was ordered to pay, 除其他外, Katanga’s third-party funding costs.
事实背景
上 13 一月 2020, Katanga commenced two ICC arbitrations against Tenke (which were later consolidated), claiming circa USD 13.6 百万, under two contracts for works related to a mine operated by Tenke in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In the arbitration, Katanga 在成本提交阶段首次透露，它已获得股东贷款以资助仲裁程序 (你也可以参考 我们关于在此处披露第三方资助协议的评论). 尽管有 Tenke 的要求, 法庭不允许 Tenke 就第三方资助协议对 Katanga 进行盘问，只允许披露与贷款有关的文件.
上 26 八月 2021, 国际商会仲裁庭作出最终裁决 (“最终奖”), 判给加丹加所有索赔的款项, 包括美元 1.7 million for its third-party funding costs advanced by way of a shareholder loan, plus compound interest at 9% already accrued to about USD 2 百万 (Tenke v. Katanga, 为. 20). The tribunal also dismissed all of Tenke’s counterclaims.
此后, Tenke challenged the validity of the Final Award before the English courts, 下节 68 of the Arbitration Act for serious irregularity, advancing four grounds, including that the tribunal had allegedly exceeded its power by awarding Katanga its third-party funding costs (Tenke v. Katanga, 最好. 22-23 和 63(ii)).
国际商会仲裁庭在其最终裁决中做出了什么决定?
在其最终奖中, ICC 法庭认为，它有权将 Katanga 的资金成本判给“其他费用” 本节所指 59(1)(C) 仲裁法和条款 38(1) 的 国际商会规则, 定义仲裁费用.
解释, 仲裁庭裁决费用的权力主要载于第 61(1) 仲裁法, 提供, “仲裁庭可以作出裁决，在各方之间分配仲裁费用, 遵守双方的任何协议.“ 然后, 部分 59(1) 《仲裁法》阐明了对“仲裁费用为—— (一种) 仲裁员’ 费用和支出, (b) 任何有关仲裁机构的费用和开支, 和 (C) 合法或 当事人的其他费用.”
加丹加的论点使仲裁庭信服：, 作为英国法律的问题, 声称的第三方资助成本是“其他费用” 在第 59(1)(C) 仲裁法. 支持其立场, 加丹加引用了类似的权威, 以前的, 英文案例, 即, Essar 油田服务 v. Norscot 钻机管理 [2016] EWHC 2361 (通讯) (看到 我们的评论 埃萨尔 这里), 其中高等法院也拒绝了根据第 68(2)(b) 涉嫌权力过大的仲裁法, 认为 埃萨尔 tribunal’s decision to award third-party funding costs fell within the tribunal’s power and discretion, subject to the requirement of reasonableness (Tenke v. Katanga, 为. 74(408)).
相似地, 的 Tenke arbitral tribunal held that the “principal issue that the Tribunal needs to decide in relation to the claimed funding costs is whether they are ‘reasonable’ in two respects: as to the principle of [Katanga] having recourse to this type of funding and as to the amount” (Tenke v. Katanga, 为. 68(411)). 的 Tenke tribunal further ruled in this respect that, while Katanga’s funder was a company controlled by a shareholder of Katanga, thereby the funding agreement may not have been “an arms’ length transaction”, the question remained “whether such a choice by [Katanga] was reasonable in the circumstances” (Tenke v. Katanga, 为. 68(412)). 的 Tenke tribunal was convinced that this choice was reasonable, and so were the amounts of Katanga’s funding costs, and thereby decided to award all such costs to Katanga.
What Did the English High Court Decide?
As ruled previously in Essar v. Norscot, the High Court refused to find that the Final Award, whereby Katanga was awarded its third-party funding costs, amounted to an excess of the tribunal’s power and thereby dismissed Tenke’s Section 68 challenge to the Final Award for alleged excess of power. ICC最终裁决的有效性是, 从而, 英国法院维持原判.
Tenke 提出了各种论据来支持其立场，即第三方资助的成本不属于“其他费用” 在第 59(1)(C) 仲裁法, 因此法庭无权将他们判给加丹加, 包括以下 (Tenke v. Katanga, 为. 76):
- 当《仲裁法》通过时, 没有人可以合理地认为 (一种) 支付给第三方资助者的费用和 (b) 与支付法律费用的贷款有关的费用，议会本来打算是 “仲裁费用” 要么 “legal or other costs of the parties” 下节 59(1) 仲裁法.
- That fees payable to litigation funders are not recoverable in litigation, 因此没有理由认为议会打算对仲裁有任何不同.
- 这不仅是决定 埃萨尔 错了, 并在国际仲裁领域受到了惊喜和关注, 而且本案比 埃萨尔 因为资金来自加丹加自己的一位股东所拥有的关联公司, 而不是受监管的第三方资助者.
- 如果最终奖被允许成立, 这将鼓励索赔人获得股东贷款, so that shareholders can try to recover further “费用“.
The High Court was not convinced by Tenke’s arguments, 然而, and stressed that, even if the costs award was wrong as a matter of law (which was not the matter in dispute), 就本节而言，它并不构成权力过度 68(2)(b) 仲裁法 (Tenke v. Katanga, 最好. 78 和 94). 英国法院进一步澄清, 在这方面, 那个[一世]f 存在这样的法律错误，根据第 1 条有补救措施 69 [仲裁法 (就法律问题提出上诉)]. 然而，在本案中，该补救措施被协议排除在外. 达成此类协议后，一方不得通过将指称的法律错误描述为权力过大来规避协议” (Tenke v. Katanga, 为. 95).
What Are the Practical Implications of the Tenke v. Katanga Decision?
The practical implications and key takeaways of the High Court’s recent decision in Tenke v. Katanga 以下是:
- Upholding Arbitral Tribunals’ Power to Award Third-Party Funding Costs: Tenke v. Katanga reaffirms that a London-seated arbitral tribunal is empowered to award to a party its reasonable third-party funding costs. 该决定确认，英国法院不愿以仲裁庭超出其在第 68 仲裁法. 另一方面, 这也强调了反对方在寻求以权力过剩为由对资助成本裁决提出质疑时将面临的困难.
- 重申决定 Essar v. Norscot: 该决定遵循并重申了所采取的立场 Essar v. Norscot [2016], 高等法院也拒绝允许某部分 68 对已分配第三方资金成本的国际商会仲裁裁决提出质疑.
- 创造国际仲裁相对于英国商事诉讼的显着优势, 诉讼资金的成本: 通过确认国际仲裁中第三方资助成本的可收回性, Tenke v. Katanga creates a conspicuous incentive for parties to opt for international arbitration instead of traditional litigation, where litigation funding costs are generally not recoverable from the losing party (看到, 例如, Rowe & Ors v Ingenious Media Holdings PLC & 奥尔斯 [2021] EWCA文明 29, 为. 49, 规定“costs or losses involved in funding litigation costs, on both sides, are not recoverable from the other party. 部分 51 高等法院法 1981 provides the jurisdiction for an award of costs. It applies to ‘costs of or incidental to’ the litigation. 早已确定资助诉讼的成本不在这样的定义范围内.”)
- 增强伦敦仲裁中第三方资助的吸引力: 该判决可能会为出资者和需要资金的当事人双方提供额外的安慰，即位于伦敦的仲裁庭有权将与第三方资金相关的重大费用判给胜诉方, 并且由此产生的仲裁裁决不太可能在此基础上被推翻. 从而, such confirmation of a tribunal’s power may also facilitate the appeal of third-party funding to parties in London-seated arbitrations, as third-party funding is costly.
- Signaling the Acceptance of Third-Party Funding by Both Tribunals and English Courts: The High Court’s refusal to see an award for funding costs as an excess of the tribunal’s power, as well as the increasing readiness of tribunals, such as the ones in Tenke 和 埃萨尔, to award third-party funding costs in the first place, 表明仲裁中越来越多地接受第三方资助协议, 这是一个积极的发展. 第三方资金可以帮助有功绩的当事人通过仲裁寻求赔偿，而无需将资金从企业的其他运营和盈利职能中转移出去 (请参考我们的 关于如何在此处获得第三方资金的评论).
结论
结论, 英国高等法院在 Tenke v. Katanga [2021] 确认高等法院先前在 Essar v. Norscot [2016], 即, 伦敦仲裁庭有权作出裁决，将第三方资金成本分配给胜诉方. 此类确认应使需要资金的各方感到安慰，他们可能能够在仲裁中收回此类费用, 同时创造了国际仲裁相对于资金成本较低的传统诉讼的显着优势, 原则上, 无法从另一侧恢复.
案例详情
- 派对: Tenke Fungurume Mining S.A. v Katanga Contracting Services S.A.S.
- 法庭: 英国高等法院 (商业的)
- 法官: 太太. 莫尔德大法官 DBE
判决日期: 7 十二月 2021