4章仲裁员受到当事人攻击(如向法院申请赶走)的应对

1、.：.；第四章 仲裁员遭到当事人攻击如向法院恳求赶走的应对1. 当事人去法院寻求赶走仲裁员或对判决书的救援应否通知受影响的仲裁员本章所针对的问题不像有很多资料或讨论。这方面问题也没有在1996年中有明确针对，更加不会在相对没有那么广泛的中有针对。现实上也很少有文章针对这一方面的问题，好似是仲裁员遭到一方当事人的攻击去法院寻求救援可以去怎样应对。又或是，一方当事人去法院寻求救援能否可以去传召遭到攻击的仲裁员作为现实证人。其中是仲裁员遭到一方当事人的攻击去法院寻求救援假设是发生在作出判决书特别是最后判决书之后，会是可以觉得置身事外不用太过担忧。但假设仲裁员是在仲裁程序的中途就遭到攻击，例如一方当事

2、人去法院寻求救援是发生在仲裁程序的中途，这往往是涉及要去把仲裁员赶走，那么该仲裁员就不是这么容易去置身事外了。本来一向的说法是仲裁员中途就遭到攻击要去把他赶走会发生的时机很少，不论是在1996年生效前或生效后。缘由是几个方面，对寻求这种救援的当事人而言，他要冒很大的风险就是假设不胜利的话，他就很难安心去继续参与及推进该仲裁程序，由于被他公开甚至过火被攻击的仲裁员还是继续作为仲裁庭成员之一甚至是独任仲裁员将去决议他的生死。所以，当事人会去提出这种救援往往是孤注一掷。对英国法院而言，它的矛盾也是在多方面。第一就是会干涉仲裁程序，例如本来就很快要开庭，但由于这一个恳求而被押后。第二就是今天的大气候就

3、是法院尽量不要去干涉仲裁，除非是一个非常极端的情况。这种极端的情况是要法院以为仲裁员的行为曾经严重至法院置信他是没有方法公正与恰当的完成这一仲裁。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。光是一方当事人对该仲裁员失去了自信心是缺乏够去压服法院去把该仲裁员赶走：Conder Structures v Kvaerner Construction Ltd. (1999) A.D.R.L.J. 305.。对受攻击的仲裁员而言，由于去把他赶走的恳求往往会涉及恳求人/原告会作出过火或夸张的指控，所以需求去参与以及向法院作出解释或反驳的必要性也大大提高。这是相比曾经作出了判决书但败诉方向法院根据Section 68的仲裁程序上“严重不正常 (serious irregularity)恳求把判决书撤销而言仲裁员不需求太过担忧。在本文，

5、就是去讨论仲裁员面对这种情况如何去应对。 1.1 当事人在什么情形下去法院寻求赶走/挑战仲裁员1.1.1 在仲裁程序中途其实这个问题的危险性不断都有甚至很高，首先会出如今假设当事人在仲裁程序中途对个别或者全体仲裁员不称心的情况，所以去英国法院根据1996年之Section 24恳求赶走该个别或者全部的仲裁员，进而重新委任其他仲裁员。该条文如下：“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.。加黑是为了强调本章所要针对的课题1.1.2 在仲裁庭作出了中间或最后判决书之后第二种情况是在仲裁庭作出了中间或最后判决书之后，败诉的一方不称心判决结果，去向英国法院根据1996年之Section 68以仲裁员在仲裁程序中或判决书中有严重不正常的行为，要求法院作出救援，把该判决书撤销。该条文如下：“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. 。加黑是为了强调本章所要针对的课题会有情况是不称心的当事人会把2种恳求走在一同，比如说当事人会把仲裁的中间判决书撤销，而又不想仲裁庭继续审理下去。在上述2种情况的有

10、关条文中，都有明确规定向法院作出恳求的一方要“通知遭到攻击的仲裁庭或仲裁庭个别成员。而普通的通知做法，就是恳求方/原告，在“仲裁争议恳求表Arbitration Claim Form，相等于之前的传票或英文的Notice of Motion去把对方当事人列为第一被告，而遭到攻击的仲裁员就列为第二被告。之后就是去把该恳求表“送达service给一切的被告，这就完成了通知的要求。1.2 仲裁员在遭到攻击时能否会出庭抗辩的常理分析显然，对方当事人作为主要的被告，去把恳求表送达给他是完全有必要与恰当，由于他显然是不认同原告的做法。假设被告是认同与不作出争辩，在仲裁程序中途就完全可以与原告达成协议，遭到

11、攻击的仲裁员就非走不可了，根本不用花钱去英国法院把该仲裁员赶走。同样是在判决书撤销的恳求，假设被告也是认同与不作出争辩，就完全可以与原告达成和解协议，例如只需求支付判决书判下来一半的金额，或是不理睬双方以为判错的判决书应该在另一个新成立的仲裁庭去重新再来，反正是双方有订约自在，无须花钱去法院寻求撤销判决书的救援。既然第一被告是利益相关而必需作出对抗，所以作为仲裁员的第二被告现实上是没有必要去参与法院的诉讼。毕竟，仲裁员会要委任代表律师，这可不是一笔小钱。针对原告恳求去把他赶走，该仲裁员还会是比较关怀。但针对原告恳求把败诉的判决书撤销，该仲裁员恐怕会是漠不关怀。当然，不去出庭的话就会有时机让原告

12、获得一个缺席的法院判决。除了是把仲裁员赶走或把判决书撤销这2个后果有关的仲裁员会是预备接受法院的决议，但外表看来，怕是有更严重的后果。一是法院能够听了原告的一面之词而第一被告也没有大力或正确的作出抗辩，法院会在判决中讲一些对于仲裁员过度严峻与不公平的指摘，这对一位继续想在仲裁领域有所开展的人士或者是一位曾经有一定声望的仲裁人士是宏大的打击。二是诉讼费用会是要该仲裁员承当或共同承当，毕竟是在原告恳求获得胜利下。1.3要求正式通知与送达给仲裁员的先例：Port Sudan v. Chettiar有关对受影响的仲裁员的通知，在1996年以前的1950年是没有针对应该怎样做，例如可否去非正式地发一个电

13、邮告知仲裁员？这在普通法还是有所针对，是在Port Sudan Cotton Co. v. Govindaswamy Chettiar & Sons (1977) 1 Lloyds Rep 166先例中有涉及。该先例的案情是把“利物浦棉花协会Liverpool Cotton Association的机构仲裁的判决书撤销。有关法院的撤销行动应该怎样通知棉花协会，Donaldson大法官是这样说： “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 (棉花协会) was told informally of the notice of motion and was given a copy. This was regarded by the buyers (恳求撤销判决书的一方) 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大法官的判决内容大致上是说恳求人/原告非正式地通知了棉花协会的仲裁员，根据的是一本权威著作的说法，这说法是基于一个1873年的案例，说是在法院的上诉也没有必要去正式通知第一审法院的法官，所以仲裁对判决书的上诉或提出质疑，也没有必需去正式通知仲裁员。但Donaldson大法官对这种做法好似不太认同，缘由也可以估计到，就是非正式通知的话会导致遭到攻击的仲裁员难以去维护他本人的声誉并参与法院有关程序，他会先要向法院恳求同意他去参与作为第二

21、被告，这样才有时机出庭作出抗辩。上面节录的最后一段是说：现代的做法是针对仲裁员或者公断人的不良行为，传票是要送达给受影响的仲裁员。他就有一个选择去(a)作为当事人的一方全面与积极的参与法院的程序；(b)提供应法院一份有关现实的宣誓书；(c)不采取任何行动去参与，可被假设为他接受法院最后做出的任何判决。这一个做法的缘由是根据自然公正，就是不能去法院攻击仲裁员的行为，但却不给他一个解释与回应的时机。其中(a)的选择，也曾经在1996年之Section 24(5)有去明示规定，说：“The arbitrator concerned is entitled to appear and be heard

22、 by the court before it makes any order under this section.。估计在现实中，遭到攻击仲裁员选择(a)做法不应该是太多，由于要积极参与法院程序会要委任昂贵的代表律师与要占用仲裁员的时间，但毕竟还是有能够去这样做，请参阅Miller Construction Ltd v James Moore Earthmoving (2001) 2 All ER (Comm.) 598与Norbrook Labratories Ltd v Tank (2006) 2 Lloyds Rep 485。另要去阐明的是遭到攻击仲裁员固然要正式收到有关恳求的通知，

23、但其他仲裁庭的成员即使不遭到攻击也应该去向他们送达。毕竟他们会关怀这一个法律的行动，由于根据1996年之Section 24(3)，阐明即使向法院作出恳求去赶走仲裁员，仲裁庭还是可以继续推进仲裁程序并作出一个判决书。所以，会有情况是在开庭前的几天，其中一方当事人，例如是被告，向法院作出恳求要把其中一位仲裁员赶走，并同时向仲裁庭恳求把开庭押后。这一来，即使是没有遭到攻击的仲裁庭成员也会希望知道多一点有关法院恳求的资料，以作出决议究竟开庭是推进还是押后。1.4涉及国际仲裁员的通知如何去送达恳求书涉及国际仲裁，通知仲裁员还有一个困难就是仲裁庭的成员能够不同国家，所以送达给他们能够会带来延误与困难。把

24、“仲裁争议恳求表Arbitration Claim Form或以前称为的传票去送达给英国以外的当事人是需求先获得法院的允许：CPR r.62.5(1)，这方面可参阅Vale da Doce Novegavcao v Shanghai Steel (2000) 2 Lloyds Rep 1。所以有判例说是即使没有把传票送达给仲裁员，法院也会在这种情况下有裁量权去允许把仲裁员赶走或/与把判决书撤销的恳求去推进并处置。例如在Bank Mellat v. GAA Development (1988) 2 Lloyds Rep. 44，就涉及了一位仲裁员是伊朗，另一位仲裁员是瑞典，仲裁庭只需一位仲裁员才

25、是住在英国的御用大律师。显然，只需把传票送达给住在英国的一位仲裁员才是比较容易。在判决书作出之后向英国法院恳求撤销判决书的行动中，法院就允许恳求去推进而不用去把传票送达给仲裁员。Steyn大法官是这样说：“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恳求救援假设胜利把仲裁员赶走或把判决书撤销的诉讼

29、费用会否要仲裁员承当？这带来了一个关怀就是假设遭到攻击的仲裁员选择上一段第(c)的做法，也就是不去理睬法院的诉讼，会否有一个危险被视为是缺席，而面对在恳求人假设胜利去把他赶走或者把判决书撤销的同时，要该仲裁员承当法院的诉讼费用。这在Port Sudan Cotton Co. v. Govindaswamy Chettiar & Sons (1977) 1 Lloyds Rep 166，Donaldson大法官也有解释说：“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.。有关这一个诉讼费用的问题，根据这一个先例，Mus

33、till & Boyd on 第二版之553页的脚注有进一步分析说：“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.。另可以去节录Robert Merkin教授所著的一书2004年版之20.39段的脚注11中也是针对该Port Sudan Cotton Co. v. Govindaswamy Chettiar & Sons (1977) 1 Lloyds Rep 166先例说：“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年下的改动普通法的位置应该是在1996年之后有了一定改动，是更加明确的是这个赶走仲裁员或者撤销判决书的恳求必需通知遭到攻击的仲裁员。另一个能够是有关的改动是该立法的Section 29给与仲裁员对他忽略的豁免权，这能够表示英国法院不应该对仲裁员作出任何承当诉讼费用的命令，即使是决议把他赶走，除非涉及了该仲裁员的恶意

36、行为，例如是贪污受贿。有关什么算是“通知，可去引见Bruce Harris先生等所著的第四版，针对Section 24也有在127页明确的说法，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. 。以上所说是在1996年下，会有较多遭到攻击要把他赶走的仲裁员出庭抗辩，好似Norbrook Labratories Ltd v Tank (2006) 2 Lloy

39、ds Rep 485先例的仲裁员。另在特许仲裁员学会的刊物Volume 72，2006年11月的一篇文章352页，有一个伦敦仲裁员提到在一个根据Section 69恳求由于法律观念错误的上诉，他也是被列为是第二被告。但他写了一封信给法院并抄本给当事人说是他无意去参与，说：“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.。针对法律观念的上诉去把仲裁员作为被告之一看来在1996年下是没有必要，这可接下去引见另一本权威书籍有更明确的指引与做法。这是Sir Anthony Colman等所著的2021年第六版有关1996年下把通知仲

41、裁员去区分为2种情况。根据Section 24把仲裁员赶走另在Section 28与Section 56有关仲裁员的费用，恳求人/原告是必需把仲裁员作为是被告之一，并必需求去送达仲裁争议恳求表。但在其他情况的通知，主要是根据Sections 67-69对判决书向法院恳求救援，就不应该把仲裁员作为被告之一，只需把仲裁争议恳求表的一份副本给他作为资料就曾经足够。该书在299-300页是这样说：“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.。 针对第一种情况也就是根据Section 24要把仲裁员赶走，遭

44、到攻击的仲裁员作为被告之一就要在送达的14天内成认送达。假设他不这样做就会失去抗辩的时机。这在一书之300页说：“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.。针对第二种情况也就是仲裁员没有被列为被告之一，但仲裁员在获得这一个恳求的通知后，希望去参与法院的诉讼或希望直接提供应法院一些有关资料或证据，他的做法在一书

48、之300页也说：“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 遭到攻击仲裁员面对要承当法院诉讼费用的危险从上述的引见外表看来，仲裁员是在普通法下不用担任法院的诉讼费用，但现实上还是会有危险：一就是会有例外情况要仲裁员去承当，有关欺

50、诈的解释就比较明了，但另一种例外情况就是仲裁员在法院诉讼中太积极参与实践情况就不是太清楚；二这特别要思索到仲裁员面对这种恳求多数会选择上述引见的3种做法中的(b)或(c)，这表示第一被告假设不去大力与正确的对抗情况下，会导致恳求人/原告更加容易胜利与主张仲裁员有欺诈或严重过错，进而法院命令仲裁员要承当诉讼费用；三毕竟在上述提到的Bruce Harris先生等所著的第四版中阐明有这一个风险，特别是在Section 24去把仲裁员赶走的恳求；四仲裁员假设选择(a)的应对去积极参与，并且恳求人失败并要承当有关的费用，也不保证仲裁员可以以补偿根底全数拿回他所付出的相关的律师费用；五现实中最大的危险就是

51、恳求人在败诉之后被法院判要承当诉讼费用，包括被告与仲裁员的律师费用，但恳求人不支付或付不起，执行也非常困难。这样一来，仲裁员就要本人承当昂贵的律师费用了。笔者本人就曾经有这种阅历，就是韩国的原告恳求把笔者杨良宜赶走失败后并被香港法院判要承当诉讼费用，变了无影无踪。这导致了笔者为了去作出宣誓书以及其他相关任务的一笔费用高达30万港币没方法取回，最后总算得到被告支付一部分，而剩下的一部分就要撇帐了。1.8 遭到攻击仲裁员比较平安的做法所以，一种做法就是伦敦仲裁员在知道原告这一个法院行动后经过送达，并且是作为被告之一，很快去以文书提出要求，就是要求原告不要求他去出庭应讯，并同时答应会在有必要提供应法

52、院解释的时候去做出宣誓书或证人证言，经过双方当事人去交出给法院。原告普通情况下也只是需求对方当事人作为被告去出庭应讯，所以通常都会赞同。有了原告这一个赞同，仲裁员就几乎可以一定不会在他不知情的情况下对他作出判决，要求他承当诉讼费用。而由于仲裁员不去应讯出庭，他就不应该产生任何律师费用。顶多是未来取不回来他为了协助法院作出宣誓书的有关费用这是指仲裁员花时间去作出宣誓书，但这不是需求支付出去给第三者，所以仲裁员将其当作是坏帐或者是收不回来的任务时间产生的费用，这也比较容易接受。2. 法院传召仲裁员作为现实证人出庭举证但即使原告赞同不要求遭到攻击仲裁员出庭或是根据普通法该仲裁员也可以选择不去参与，也

53、不代表在有必要的情况下不要求该仲裁员出庭或接受盘问，特别是大家对仲裁过程中的现实有争议，需求仲裁员去做出廓清。例如，在开庭时大家讲过什么话而且没有 “开庭记录transcript。这一来，仲裁员假设需求出庭作为现实证人就有必要知道什么是他必需求讲，什么是他不需求讲或回应。2.1 仲裁员可否被传召为证人？这里第一个问题就是仲裁员可否被法院传召为证人？外表看来该问题的答案是不明确。这是由于不断有说法是仲裁员与法官的任务性质、内容与位置都非常类似，仲裁员还被称为是 “私人法官private judge。香港与英国的仲裁法之Section 2GM与1996年之Section 29也都尽量去拉近两者的间

54、隔 ，并都赋予仲裁员与法官同样的豁免权。这一来，由于在英国法律法官审理案件的现实是不存在去传召他为证人，照理说是仲裁员也不应该去被传召为证人。但由于没有近期的案例，所以这一方面的英国法律位置有一点像在立法前有关仲裁员可否好似法官享有豁免权一样，大家有不同的争议与位置不明朗。这方面虽然没有近期的案例，但在英国普通法下，是有一些比较古老的案例针对过这一个问题。这些案例不大可靠的就是当时的大环境对仲裁的看法与今天是很不一样，所以未来贵族院会不会作出改动或是经过立法去改动难以预测。只说，在目前的英国普通法位置下，按照100多年前的一个贵族院先例，法院是可以传召仲裁员出庭作为证人。该先例是Duke of

55、 Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Board of Works (Buccleuch) (1871-72) L.R.5 H.L. 418，Cleasby男爵是这样说：“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.。这一个先例在接下去的几个案例也是有同样的判法。第一个是Leiserach v. Schalit (1934) 2 KB 353，Humphreys大法官在处置一个想去把判决书撤销的恳求时觉察有一个仲裁中的现实无法去认定，他赞同一方当事人的恳求去传召仲裁员作为现实证人，说：“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