1、.：.；第四章 仲裁員遭到當事人攻擊如向法院懇求趕走的應(yīng)對1. 當事人去法院尋求趕走仲裁員或?qū)ε袥Q書的救援應(yīng)否通知受影響的仲裁員本章所針對的問題不像有很多資料或討論。這方面問題也沒有在1996年中有明確針對，更加不會在相對沒有那么廣泛的中有針對。現(xiàn)實上也很少有文章針對這一方面的問題，好似是仲裁員遭到一方當事人的攻擊去法院尋求救援可以去怎樣應(yīng)對。又或是，一方當事人去法院尋求救援能否可以去傳召遭到攻擊的仲裁員作為現(xiàn)實證人。其中是仲裁員遭到一方當事人的攻擊去法院尋求救援假設(shè)是發(fā)生在作出判決書特別是最后判決書之后，會是可以覺得置身事外不用太過擔憂。但假設(shè)仲裁員是在仲裁程序的中途就遭到攻擊，例如一方當事

2、人去法院尋求救援是發(fā)生在仲裁程序的中途，這往往是涉及要去把仲裁員趕走，那么該仲裁員就不是這么容易去置身事外了。本來一向的說法是仲裁員中途就遭到攻擊要去把他趕走會發(fā)生的時機很少，不論是在1996年生效前或生效后。緣由是幾個方面，對尋求這種救援的當事人而言，他要冒很大的風(fēng)險就是假設(shè)不勝利的話，他就很難安心去繼續(xù)參與及推進該仲裁程序，由于被他公開甚至過火被攻擊的仲裁員還是繼續(xù)作為仲裁庭成員之一甚至是獨任仲裁員將去決議他的生死。所以，當事人會去提出這種救援往往是孤注一擲。對英國法院而言，它的矛盾也是在多方面。第一就是會干涉仲裁程序，例如本來就很快要開庭，但由于這一個懇求而被押后。第二就是今天的大氣候就

3、是法院盡量不要去干涉仲裁，除非是一個非常極端的情況。這種極端的情況是要法院以為仲裁員的行為曾經(jīng)嚴重至法院置信他是沒有方法公正與恰當?shù)耐瓿蛇@一仲裁。He could not be trusted to complete the arbitration fairly and properly even with the examination of his conduct by the parties and their representatives and guidance from the court.:H. H. Judge Bowsher Q.C. in Groundshire v VH

4、E Constrction 2001 B.L.R. 395。光是一方當事人對該仲裁員失去了自信心是缺乏夠去壓服法院去把該仲裁員趕走：Conder Structures v Kvaerner Construction Ltd. (1999) A.D.R.L.J. 305.。對受攻擊的仲裁員而言，由于去把他趕走的懇求往往會涉及懇求人/原告會作出過火或夸張的指控，所以需求去參與以及向法院作出解釋或反駁的必要性也大大提高。這是相比曾經(jīng)作出了判決書但敗訴方向法院根據(jù)Section 68的仲裁程序上“嚴重不正常 (serious irregularity)懇求把判決書撤銷而言仲裁員不需求太過擔憂。在本文，

5、就是去討論仲裁員面對這種情況如何去應(yīng)對。 1.1 當事人在什么情形下去法院尋求趕走/挑戰(zhàn)仲裁員1.1.1 在仲裁程序中途其實這個問題的危險性不斷都有甚至很高，首先會出如今假設(shè)當事人在仲裁程序中途對個別或者全體仲裁員不稱心的情況，所以去英國法院根據(jù)1996年之Section 24懇求趕走該個別或者全部的仲裁員，進而重新委任其他仲裁員。該條文如下：“24 Power of court to remove arbitrator (1) A party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties, to the arbit

6、rator concerned and to any other arbitrator) apply to the court to remove an arbitrator on any of the following grounds (a) that circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality; (b) that he does not possess the qualifications required by the arbitration agreement; (c)

7、 that he is physically or mentally incapable of conducting the proceedings or there are justifiable doubts as to his capacity to do so; (d) that he has refused or failed (i) properly to conduct the proceedings, or (ii) to use all reasonable despatch in conducting the proceedings or making an award,

8、and that substantial injustice has been or will be caused to the applicant.。加黑是為了強調(diào)本章所要針對的課題1.1.2 在仲裁庭作出了中間或最后判決書之后第二種情況是在仲裁庭作出了中間或最后判決書之后，敗訴的一方不稱心判決結(jié)果，去向英國法院根據(jù)1996年之Section 68以仲裁員在仲裁程序中或判決書中有嚴重不正常的行為，要求法院作出救援，把該判決書撤銷。該條文如下：“68 Challenging the award: serious irregularity (1) A party to arbitral proc

9、eedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) apply to the court challenging an award in the proceedings on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award. 。加黑是為了強調(diào)本章所要針對的課題會有情況是不稱心的當事人會把2種懇求走在一同，比如說當事人會把仲裁的中間判決書撤銷，而又不想仲裁庭繼續(xù)審理下去。在上述2種情況的有

10、關(guān)條文中，都有明確規(guī)定向法院作出懇求的一方要“通知遭到攻擊的仲裁庭或仲裁庭個別成員。而普通的通知做法，就是懇求方/原告，在“仲裁爭議懇求表Arbitration Claim Form，相等于之前的傳票或英文的Notice of Motion去把對方當事人列為第一被告，而遭到攻擊的仲裁員就列為第二被告。之后就是去把該懇求表“送達service給一切的被告，這就完成了通知的要求。1.2 仲裁員在遭到攻擊時能否會出庭抗辯的常理分析顯然，對方當事人作為主要的被告，去把懇求表送達給他是完全有必要與恰當，由于他顯然是不認同原告的做法。假設(shè)被告是認同與不作出爭辯，在仲裁程序中途就完全可以與原告達成協(xié)議，遭到

11、攻擊的仲裁員就非走不可了，根本不用花錢去英國法院把該仲裁員趕走。同樣是在判決書撤銷的懇求，假設(shè)被告也是認同與不作出爭辯，就完全可以與原告達成和解協(xié)議，例如只需求支付判決書判下來一半的金額，或是不理睬雙方以為判錯的判決書應(yīng)該在另一個新成立的仲裁庭去重新再來，反正是雙方有訂約自在，無須花錢去法院尋求撤銷判決書的救援。既然第一被告是利益相關(guān)而必需作出對抗，所以作為仲裁員的第二被告現(xiàn)實上是沒有必要去參與法院的訴訟。畢竟，仲裁員會要委任代表律師，這可不是一筆小錢。針對原告懇求去把他趕走，該仲裁員還會是比較關(guān)懷。但針對原告懇求把敗訴的判決書撤銷，該仲裁員恐怕會是漠不關(guān)懷。當然，不去出庭的話就會有時機讓原告

12、獲得一個缺席的法院判決。除了是把仲裁員趕走或把判決書撤銷這2個后果有關(guān)的仲裁員會是預(yù)備接受法院的決議，但外表看來，怕是有更嚴重的后果。一是法院能夠聽了原告的一面之詞而第一被告也沒有大力或正確的作出抗辯，法院會在判決中講一些對于仲裁員過度嚴峻與不公平的指摘，這對一位繼續(xù)想在仲裁領(lǐng)域有所開展的人士或者是一位曾經(jīng)有一定聲望的仲裁人士是宏大的打擊。二是訴訟費用會是要該仲裁員承當或共同承當，畢竟是在原告懇求獲得勝利下。1.3要求正式通知與送達給仲裁員的先例：Port Sudan v. Chettiar有關(guān)對受影響的仲裁員的通知，在1996年以前的1950年是沒有針對應(yīng)該怎樣做，例如可否去非正式地發(fā)一個電

13、郵告知仲裁員？這在普通法還是有所針對，是在Port Sudan Cotton Co. v. Govindaswamy Chettiar & Sons (1977) 1 Lloyds Rep 166先例中有涉及。該先例的案情是把“利物浦棉花協(xié)會Liverpool Cotton Association的機構(gòu)仲裁的判決書撤銷。有關(guān)法院的撤銷行動應(yīng)該怎樣通知棉花協(xié)會，Donaldson大法官是這樣說： “The first question which arises is whether an arbitrator or umpire should be served with a notice of

14、 motion. In the present case the board (棉花協(xié)會) was told informally of the notice of motion and was given a copy. This was regarded by the buyers (懇求撤銷判決書的一方) solicitors as going further than was strictly necessary, because Russell on Arbitration (18th ed.) states at p.413 that:Notice of motion must b

15、e given to the parties affected This notice need not be served upon the arbitrator, any more than notice of appeal is served upon a judge.No possible criticism can be made of the buyers solicitors for acting on this statement in so well known a text book. The authority for the text is said to be Vic

16、e Chancellor Sir Richard Mallins in Moseley v. Simpson, (1873) L.R. 16 Eq. 226 at 237. What the learned Vice Chancellor in fact said was:I am by no means certain that it was necessary to serve the Arbitrators with the motion at all. This is the first instance I have known of arbitrators being served

17、, and I think that arbitrators whose decisions are appealed against for irregularity are not necessarily parties, any more than a judge whose decision is appealed against I have supplied the emphasis.This seems to me to be a very tentative expression of opinion and one which in terms is not of unive

18、rsal application. The modern practice is for a notice of motion alleging misconduct, whether technical or actual, to be served upon the arbitrator or umpire concerned. He then has a choice whether to (a) take a full part in the proceedings as an active party or (b) to file an affidavit setting out a

19、ny facts which he considers may be of assistance to the Court or (c) to take no action, in which case it will be assumed only that he has no wish to do more than accept the decision of the Court. This practice is based upon the consideration of natural justice that no one should have his conduct cri

20、ticised without being given an opportunity for replying or explaining.。以上Donaldson大法官的判決內(nèi)容大致上是說懇求人/原告非正式地通知了棉花協(xié)會的仲裁員，根據(jù)的是一本權(quán)威著作的說法，這說法是基于一個1873年的案例，說是在法院的上訴也沒有必要去正式通知第一審法院的法官，所以仲裁對判決書的上訴或提出質(zhì)疑，也沒有必需去正式通知仲裁員。但Donaldson大法官對這種做法好似不太認同，緣由也可以估計到，就是非正式通知的話會導(dǎo)致遭到攻擊的仲裁員難以去維護他本人的聲譽并參與法院有關(guān)程序，他會先要向法院懇求同意他去參與作為第二

21、被告，這樣才有時機出庭作出抗辯。上面節(jié)錄的最后一段是說：現(xiàn)代的做法是針對仲裁員或者公斷人的不良行為，傳票是要送達給受影響的仲裁員。他就有一個選擇去(a)作為當事人的一方全面與積極的參與法院的程序；(b)提供應(yīng)法院一份有關(guān)現(xiàn)實的宣誓書；(c)不采取任何行動去參與，可被假設(shè)為他接受法院最后做出的任何判決。這一個做法的緣由是根據(jù)自然公正，就是不能去法院攻擊仲裁員的行為，但卻不給他一個解釋與回應(yīng)的時機。其中(a)的選擇，也曾經(jīng)在1996年之Section 24(5)有去明示規(guī)定，說：“The arbitrator concerned is entitled to appear and be heard

22、 by the court before it makes any order under this section.。估計在現(xiàn)實中，遭到攻擊仲裁員選擇(a)做法不應(yīng)該是太多，由于要積極參與法院程序會要委任昂貴的代表律師與要占用仲裁員的時間，但畢竟還是有能夠去這樣做，請參閱Miller Construction Ltd v James Moore Earthmoving (2001) 2 All ER (Comm.) 598與Norbrook Labratories Ltd v Tank (2006) 2 Lloyds Rep 485。另要去闡明的是遭到攻擊仲裁員固然要正式收到有關(guān)懇求的通知，

23、但其他仲裁庭的成員即使不遭到攻擊也應(yīng)該去向他們送達。畢竟他們會關(guān)懷這一個法律的行動，由于根據(jù)1996年之Section 24(3)，闡明即使向法院作出懇求去趕走仲裁員，仲裁庭還是可以繼續(xù)推進仲裁程序并作出一個判決書。所以，會有情況是在開庭前的幾天，其中一方當事人，例如是被告，向法院作出懇求要把其中一位仲裁員趕走，并同時向仲裁庭懇求把開庭押后。這一來，即使是沒有遭到攻擊的仲裁庭成員也會希望知道多一點有關(guān)法院懇求的資料，以作出決議究竟開庭是推進還是押后。1.4涉及國際仲裁員的通知如何去送達懇求書涉及國際仲裁，通知仲裁員還有一個困難就是仲裁庭的成員能夠不同國家，所以送達給他們能夠會帶來延誤與困難。把

24、“仲裁爭議懇求表Arbitration Claim Form或以前稱為的傳票去送達給英國以外的當事人是需求先獲得法院的允許：CPR r.62.5(1)，這方面可參閱Vale da Doce Novegavcao v Shanghai Steel (2000) 2 Lloyds Rep 1。所以有判例說是即使沒有把傳票送達給仲裁員，法院也會在這種情況下有裁量權(quán)去允許把仲裁員趕走或/與把判決書撤銷的懇求去推進并處置。例如在Bank Mellat v. GAA Development (1988) 2 Lloyds Rep. 44，就涉及了一位仲裁員是伊朗，另一位仲裁員是瑞典，仲裁庭只需一位仲裁員才

25、是住在英國的御用大律師。顯然，只需把傳票送達給住在英國的一位仲裁員才是比較容易。在判決書作出之后向英國法院懇求撤銷判決書的行動中，法院就允許懇求去推進而不用去把傳票送達給仲裁員。Steyn大法官是這樣說：“It is now necessary to examine the merits of the application to set aside the award on the ground of misconduct. But before I do so, I must point out that during the hearing a procedural difficulty

26、 arose. There is a rule of practice that such an application should be served on the arbitrators in order to enable them to place before the Court evidence relevant to the charge of misconduct if they should consider it appropriate to do so: see Port Sudan Cotton Co. v. Govindaswamy Chettiar & Sons,

27、 1977 1 Lloyds Rep.166. In the present case the application under s. 23(2) was not served on the arbitrators. Despite this procedural flaw I ruled that the hearing to set aside the award on the ground of misconduct should continue. This ruling was based cumulatively on the expense and delay, which w

28、ould have been caused by an adjournment, and a provisional view that the application ought not to succeed. Needless to say, if the fluctuating fortunes of adversarial argument had subsequently required an adjournment, I would have been prepared to take a different course.。1.5懇求救援假設(shè)勝利把仲裁員趕走或把判決書撤銷的訴訟

29、費用會否要仲裁員承當？這帶來了一個關(guān)懷就是假設(shè)遭到攻擊的仲裁員選擇上一段第(c)的做法，也就是不去理睬法院的訴訟，會否有一個危險被視為是缺席，而面對在懇求人假設(shè)勝利去把他趕走或者把判決書撤銷的同時，要該仲裁員承當法院的訴訟費用。這在Port Sudan Cotton Co. v. Govindaswamy Chettiar & Sons (1977) 1 Lloyds Rep 166，Donaldson大法官也有解釋說：“So far as costs are concerned, it is not the practice to make an order against an umpir

30、e or arbitrator unless the facts are wholly exceptional, e.g., fraud by the arbitrator, or he takes an active part in the proceedings as the parties to the arbitration. I personally have no recollection of any such order ever being made. Merely attending by Counsel, as was eventually done in this ca

31、se, or giving the Court information which is thought to be helpful would not in any way involve the arbitrator in any risk of liability or the costs of the proceedings. Indeed, in appropriate cases, it would be more likely to earn the appreciation of the Court which I should like to express in relat

32、ion to the courtesy of the board in attending these proceedings as they did. In cases in which a party impugns the conduct of arbitrators in other than the most technical respects and the complaint fails, the arbitrators will be entitled to an order for costs if they appear.。有關(guān)這一個訴訟費用的問題，根據(jù)這一個先例，Mus

33、till & Boyd on 第二版之553頁的腳注有進一步分析說：“If the allegation of misconduct fails, the arbitrator or umpire will be entitled to an order for costs if he appears, and (presumably) the costs of any affidavit filed by him. If the allegation succeeds, costs will not be awarded against the arbitration or umpire s

34、ave in exceptional circumstances, e.g. fraud, or where the arbitrator or umpire has been the protagonist in the proceedings.。另可以去節(jié)錄Robert Merkin教授所著的一書2004年版之20.39段的腳注11中也是針對該Port Sudan Cotton Co. v. Govindaswamy Chettiar & Sons (1977) 1 Lloyds Rep 166先例說：“the case which also decides that the arbitr

35、ators bear no liability for the costs of the hearing unless they take an active part in it or are found to have been guilty of fraud.。1.6 1996年下的改動普通法的位置應(yīng)該是在1996年之后有了一定改動，是更加明確的是這個趕走仲裁員或者撤銷判決書的懇求必需通知遭到攻擊的仲裁員。另一個能夠是有關(guān)的改動是該立法的Section 29給與仲裁員對他忽略的豁免權(quán)，這能夠表示英國法院不應(yīng)該對仲裁員作出任何承當訴訟費用的命令，即使是決議把他趕走，除非涉及了該仲裁員的惡意

36、行為，例如是貪污受賄。有關(guān)什么算是“通知，可去引見Bruce Harris先生等所著的第四版，針對Section 24也有在127頁明確的說法，如下：“The arbitrator concerned is entitled to appear and be heard on the application to remove him. Under the procedure now followed such an arbitrator will be made a defendant to the proceedings. In the first edition we suggested

37、 that the arbitrator would rarely be well advised to appear. Under the new procedure, as a defendant he is more or less forced to take some part in the proceedings unless he is prepared to risk removal and an order for costs against him. We expect, therefore, most arbitrators to acknowledge service

38、and then consider the extent to which they wish to put in evidence and participate at the hearing. Many will still, no doubt, substantially leave it to the party seeking to uphold their conduct to fight their corner. 。以上所說是在1996年下，會有較多遭到攻擊要把他趕走的仲裁員出庭抗辯，好似Norbrook Labratories Ltd v Tank (2006) 2 Lloy

39、ds Rep 485先例的仲裁員。另在特許仲裁員學(xué)會的刊物Volume 72，2006年11月的一篇文章352頁，有一個倫敦仲裁員提到在一個根據(jù)Section 69懇求由于法律觀念錯誤的上訴，他也是被列為是第二被告。但他寫了一封信給法院并抄本給當事人說是他無意去參與，說：“The purpose of this letter is to let you know that I am content to abide by the decision of the Court in respect of the application. As the appointed arbitrator I

40、do not consider that it would be appropriate for me to take part in these proceedings. Accordingly, with no disrespect to the Court, I do not intend to return the Acknowledgement of Service Form.。針對法律觀念的上訴去把仲裁員作為被告之一看來在1996年下是沒有必要，這可接下去引見另一本權(quán)威書籍有更明確的指引與做法。這是Sir Anthony Colman等所著的2021年第六版有關(guān)1996年下把通知仲

41、裁員去區(qū)分為2種情況。根據(jù)Section 24把仲裁員趕走另在Section 28與Section 56有關(guān)仲裁員的費用，懇求人/原告是必需把仲裁員作為是被告之一，并必需求去送達仲裁爭議懇求表。但在其他情況的通知，主要是根據(jù)Sections 67-69對判決書向法院懇求救援，就不應(yīng)該把仲裁員作為被告之一，只需把仲裁爭議懇求表的一份副本給他作為資料就曾經(jīng)足夠。該書在299-300頁是這樣說：“Where under the 1996 Act the arbitrators must be made defendants, the arbitration claim form and accomp

42、anying documentation must be served upon them. Where they reside outside the jurisdiction (which they may, notwithstanding that the seat of the arbitration is or was in England and Wales), the rules set out above as to service out of the jurisdiction apply.In all other cases where the Act requires n

43、otice of an application to be given to the tribunal, the arbitrators should not be made defendants to the application and the required notice is given by sending a copy of the claim form and of any written evidence in support to the arbitrators for their information.。 針對第一種情況也就是根據(jù)Section 24要把仲裁員趕走，遭

44、到攻擊的仲裁員作為被告之一就要在送達的14天內(nèi)成認送達。假設(shè)他不這樣做就會失去抗辯的時機。這在一書之300頁說：“All defendants on whom an arbitration claim form is served (including arbitrators who have been made defendants) must file an acknowledgment of service. The usual period for so doing is 14 days after the service of the claim form; if service h

45、as been effected outside the jurisdiction, the order giving permission for service out will set the relevant date, depending on the country in which the defendant is to be found. There is now a special form for acknowledgment of service in arbitration claims: form N15.A defendant who fails to acknow

46、ledge service in time will not be given notice of the date upon which the arbitration application will be heard and will not be entitled to contest the application without the permission of the court. However, the failure of a defendant to acknowledge service does not affect the claimants duty to sa

47、tisfy the court that the order applied for should be made, as the arbitration claim procedure is a modified version of the CPR Part 8 procedure, under which judgment in default of an acknowledge of service cannot be given.。針對第二種情況也就是仲裁員沒有被列為被告之一，但仲裁員在獲得這一個懇求的通知后，希望去參與法院的訴訟或希望直接提供應(yīng)法院一些有關(guān)資料或證據(jù)，他的做法在一書

48、之300頁也說：“An arbitrator who has not been made a defendant and to whom an arbitration claim form has been sent for his information can choose either to apply to the court to make him a defendant (in which case he must serve the application on the claimant, but need not serve it on any other party) or

49、he can make representations to the court by filing written evidence or simply by writing to the court, sending copies to all the parties. The weight to be given to such representations is a matter for the court.。1.7 遭到攻擊仲裁員面對要承當法院訴訟費用的危險從上述的引見外表看來，仲裁員是在普通法下不用擔任法院的訴訟費用，但現(xiàn)實上還是會有危險：一就是會有例外情況要仲裁員去承當，有關(guān)欺

50、詐的解釋就比較明了，但另一種例外情況就是仲裁員在法院訴訟中太積極參與實踐情況就不是太清楚；二這特別要思索到仲裁員面對這種懇求多數(shù)會選擇上述引見的3種做法中的(b)或(c)，這表示第一被告假設(shè)不去大力與正確的對抗情況下，會導(dǎo)致懇求人/原告更加容易勝利與主張仲裁員有欺詐或嚴重過錯，進而法院命令仲裁員要承當訴訟費用；三畢竟在上述提到的Bruce Harris先生等所著的第四版中闡明有這一個風(fēng)險，特別是在Section 24去把仲裁員趕走的懇求；四仲裁員假設(shè)選擇(a)的應(yīng)對去積極參與，并且懇求人失敗并要承當有關(guān)的費用，也不保證仲裁員可以以補償根底全數(shù)拿回他所付出的相關(guān)的律師費用；五現(xiàn)實中最大的危險就是

51、懇求人在敗訴之后被法院判要承當訴訟費用，包括被告與仲裁員的律師費用，但懇求人不支付或付不起，執(zhí)行也非常困難。這樣一來，仲裁員就要本人承當昂貴的律師費用了。筆者本人就曾經(jīng)有這種閱歷，就是韓國的原告懇求把筆者楊良宜趕走失敗后并被香港法院判要承當訴訟費用，變了無影無蹤。這導(dǎo)致了筆者為了去作出宣誓書以及其他相關(guān)任務(wù)的一筆費用高達30萬港幣沒方法取回，最后總算得到被告支付一部分，而剩下的一部分就要撇帳了。1.8 遭到攻擊仲裁員比較平安的做法所以，一種做法就是倫敦仲裁員在知道原告這一個法院行動后經(jīng)過送達，并且是作為被告之一，很快去以文書提出要求，就是要求原告不要求他去出庭應(yīng)訊，并同時答應(yīng)會在有必要提供應(yīng)法

52、院解釋的時候去做出宣誓書或證人證言，經(jīng)過雙方當事人去交出給法院。原告普通情況下也只是需求對方當事人作為被告去出庭應(yīng)訊，所以通常都會贊同。有了原告這一個贊同，仲裁員就幾乎可以一定不會在他不知情的情況下對他作出判決，要求他承當訴訟費用。而由于仲裁員不去應(yīng)訊出庭，他就不應(yīng)該產(chǎn)生任何律師費用。頂多是未來取不回來他為了協(xié)助法院作出宣誓書的有關(guān)費用這是指仲裁員花時間去作出宣誓書，但這不是需求支付出去給第三者，所以仲裁員將其當作是壞帳或者是收不回來的任務(wù)時間產(chǎn)生的費用，這也比較容易接受。2. 法院傳召仲裁員作為現(xiàn)實證人出庭舉證但即使原告贊同不要求遭到攻擊仲裁員出庭或是根據(jù)普通法該仲裁員也可以選擇不去參與，也

53、不代表在有必要的情況下不要求該仲裁員出庭或接受盤問，特別是大家對仲裁過程中的現(xiàn)實有爭議，需求仲裁員去做出廓清。例如，在開庭時大家講過什么話而且沒有 “開庭記錄transcript。這一來，仲裁員假設(shè)需求出庭作為現(xiàn)實證人就有必要知道什么是他必需求講，什么是他不需求講或回應(yīng)。2.1 仲裁員可否被傳召為證人？這里第一個問題就是仲裁員可否被法院傳召為證人？外表看來該問題的答案是不明確。這是由于不斷有說法是仲裁員與法官的任務(wù)性質(zhì)、內(nèi)容與位置都非常類似，仲裁員還被稱為是 “私人法官private judge。香港與英國的仲裁法之Section 2GM與1996年之Section 29也都盡量去拉近兩者的間

54、隔 ，并都賦予仲裁員與法官同樣的豁免權(quán)。這一來，由于在英國法律法官審理案件的現(xiàn)實是不存在去傳召他為證人，照理說是仲裁員也不應(yīng)該去被傳召為證人。但由于沒有近期的案例，所以這一方面的英國法律位置有一點像在立法前有關(guān)仲裁員可否好似法官享有豁免權(quán)一樣，大家有不同的爭議與位置不明朗。這方面雖然沒有近期的案例，但在英國普通法下，是有一些比較古老的案例針對過這一個問題。這些案例不大可靠的就是當時的大環(huán)境對仲裁的看法與今天是很不一樣，所以未來貴族院會不會作出改動或是經(jīng)過立法去改動難以預(yù)測。只說，在目前的英國普通法位置下，按照100多年前的一個貴族院先例，法院是可以傳召仲裁員出庭作為證人。該先例是Duke of

55、 Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Board of Works (Buccleuch) (1871-72) L.R.5 H.L. 418，Cleasby男爵是這樣說：“With regard to the competency of the umpire as a witness, I am not aware of any real objection to it. With respect to those who fill the office of Judge it has been felt that there are grave objections to t

56、heir conduct being made the subject of cross-examination and comment (to which hardly any limit could be put) in relation to proceedings before them; and, as everything which they can properly prove can be proved by others, the Courts of law discountenance, and I think I may say prevent them being e

57、xamined. But those objections do not apply at all to a person selected as arbitrator for the particular occasion by the parties, and he comes within the general obligation of being bound to give evidence. The practice entirely agrees with this; for it is every days practice for the arbitrator to mak

58、e an affidavit where a question arises as to what took place before him, and I have known him to be examined as a witness without objection.。這一個先例在接下去的幾個案例也是有同樣的判法。第一個是Leiserach v. Schalit (1934) 2 KB 353，Humphreys大法官在處置一個想去把判決書撤銷的懇求時覺察有一個仲裁中的現(xiàn)實無法去認定，他贊同一方當事人的懇求去傳召仲裁員作為現(xiàn)實證人，說：“This is a case in whic

59、h the Court has listened to numerous affidavits, statements in some of which directly contradict the statements in others. It is also a case in which it is essential, in order to do justice, that the Court should be enabled to make up its mind as to the actual facts of the case. In the view of the C

60、ourt this is an exceptional case, and in this exceptional case the Court has arrived at the conclusion that the only way in which it can satisfactorily deal with the matter before it, is by having the assistance of the evidence of the arbitrators, who, being independent persons, can tell the Court w