英国法院对非对称管辖权条款作出解释

2019年12月19日，在Ourspace Ventures Limited v Mr Kevan Halliwell[2019] EWHC 3475 (Ch)一案中（判决请见：阅读原文），英格兰与威尔士高等法院（以下简称法院）认为，根据《民事诉讼法》第11（5）条，当事人未能在规定期限内提出管辖权异议将被视为接受管辖权，但这种接受管辖权可以被撤销，被视为接受管辖权的当事人可以请求法院延长提交申请的期限，继而根据《民事诉讼法》第11条提出申请，请求法院宣布其不具有或不应行使管辖权。在本案中，虽然被告提出申请时存在重大和严重的迟延，且没有任何良好的迟延理由。但是，法院考虑到所有情况，认为剥夺被告在这项金额巨大的索赔中提出管辖权异议的权利是不成比例的制裁。因此，法院同意审理被告提出的申请。在审理被告的申请时，法院对非对称性管辖权条款作出解释，试图赋予所有条款相应的效力，最后支持了原告的观点，并驳回了被告的管辖权异议。

一、背景介绍

2018年4月8日，原告Ourspace Ventures与主债务人Ourspace TC International Limited, Mauritius签订了《贷款协议》。同日，原告与被告Mr Kevan Halliwell签订了一份包含个人担保函的协议（以下简称“《个人担保函》”），约定由被告为主债务人在《贷款协议》下的还款义务提供担保。

《个人担保函》第17条规定：

“17.1管辖法律：本契约及因其产生或与之有联系的任何非合同义务受英国法管辖。

17.2 仲裁：由财务文件（定义见第1.5条，并包括个人担保函本身）产生、与之有关或有联系的任何争议、请求、分歧或争执，包括任何与该财务文件的存在、有效性、解释、履行、违反、终止，或无效的后果，以及任何由该财务文件产生或与之有联系的任何非合同义务相关的任何争议（就本条款的目的而言，统称为“争议”），应提交并根据《LCIA仲裁规则》最终通过仲裁解决。

17.3 选择诉讼：（a）尽管有第17.2条（仲裁）的规定，（原告）可以通过书面通知（被告）要求所有争议或特定争议由英国法院专属解决。诉讼通知应当载明下列事项：（i）出现了争议；（ii）争议当事人；和（iii）将由DIFC法院解决的争议的性质。

（b）如果（原告）发出诉讼通知，当事人同意：（i）DIFC法院对任何此类诉讼通知所涉及的任何争议具有专属管辖权；（ii）DIFC法院是解决争议的最适当和最方便的法院，因此，任何一方均不得提出相反的意见，并且各方均放弃基于非方便法院或与财务文件相关程序有关的其他理由对DIFC法院提出异议。（iii）当事人不能就诉讼通知中规定的争议启动仲裁程序，就该等争议启动的任何仲裁程序将被终止。

（c）本条款只对（原告）适用。因此，不妨碍（原告）在任何其他有管辖权的法院就争议提起诉讼。在法律允许的范围内，（原告）可在任何司法管辖区同时提起诉讼。”

17.1 Governing Law

This Deed and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it are governed by English law.

17.2 Arbitration

(a)   Any dispute, claim, difference or controversy arising out of, relating to or having any connection with any Finance Documents [the definition of which is at clause1.5 and includes the Personal Guarantee itself], including any dispute as to its existence, validity, interpretation, performance, breach or termination or the consequences of its nullity and any dispute relating to any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it (for the purpose of this clause, a Dispute), shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration under the LCIA Arbitration Rules…

17.3 Option to Litigate

(a)   Notwithstanding Clause 17.2 (Arbitration), [the claimant] may by notice (a Litigation Notice) in writing to [the defendant] require that all Disputes or a specific Dispute be settled exclusively by the English Courts. A Litigation Notice shall specify the following:

(i)    that a Dispute has arisen;

(ii)   the Parties involved in the Dispute; and

(iii)  the nature of the Dispute to be settled by the DIFC courts.

(b)   Ifa Litigation Notice is given by [the claimant] pursuant to this Clause, the Parties agree that:

(i)    the DIFC courts have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any Dispute which is the subject of any such Litigation Notice;

(ii)   the DIFC courts are the most appropriate and convenient courts to settle Disputes and accordingly no Party will argue to the contrary and each waives objection to the DIFC courts on the grounds of inconvenient forum or otherwise in relation to proceedings in connection with the Finance Documents; and

(iii)  the Parties cannot commence arbitration proceedings in respect of the Dispute(s) specified in the Litigation Notice and any arbitration proceedings commenced in respect of any such Disputes will be terminated.

(c)   This clause is for the benefit of [the claimant] only. As a result, [the claimant] shall not be prevented from taking proceedings relating to a Dispute in any other courts with jurisdiction. To the extent allowed by law, [the claimant] may take concurrent proceedings in any number of jurisdictions."

《贷款协议》第41条包含一个在本质上与上述条款相似的条款。

原告称主债务人未履行其在《贷款协议》下的还款义务，故应当由被告根据《个人担保函》承担还款义务。

2019年3月28日，原告根据《个人担保函》第17.3条发送了诉讼通知，告知被告争议将由英国法院根据英国法进行审理。

2019年4月16日，原告向英格兰与威尔士高等法院提起诉讼。诉状被视为送达的时间为2019年8月2日。2019年8月19日，被告提交了送达确认书。

2019年9月17日，Kevan Halliwell 请求法院宣布其不具有（或不应行使）管辖权。

二、法院认定

1. 争议焦点

法院认为，本案的争议焦点在于：（1）被告在提出申请前是否提交了管辖；（2）如果没有，是否应该批准延长提交申请的期限；（3）经适当解释，第17.3条所提及的“英国法院”是否应当解释为指DIFC法院；（4）这封信函是否是诉讼通知；（5）如果这封信函不是诉讼通知，原告是否有权向英国法院提出请求；（6）如这封信函是诉讼通知，原告是否有权根据《个人担保函》第17.3（c）条的理由向英国法院提出请求。

In the above circumstances, the following issues arise in the application:
(1)   whether the defendant submitted to the jurisdiction before making the application;
(2)   if not, whether an extension of time should be granted for making the application;
(3)   whether, on the proper construction of clause 17.3, the reference to "the English Courts" should be construed as referring to the DIFC courts;
(4)   whether the Letter was a Litigation Notice;
(5)   if the Letter was not a Litigation Notice, whether the claimant is entitled to bring the claim in the English courts;
(6)   if the Letter was a Litigation Notice, whether the claimant is nonetheless entitled by reason of cl 17.3(c) to bring the claim in the English Courts.

2. 适用的法律原则

《民事诉讼法》第11条规定：“（1）希望（a）对法院审理请求的管辖权提出异议，或（b）认为法院不应行使管辖权的被告可以请求法院下达一项命令，宣布其不具有此种管辖权或不应行使其认为可能具有的任何管辖权。（2）被告如欲提出此种申请，必须先按照第10部的规定提交送达确认书。（3）提交送达确认书的被告不因此丧失任何可能对法院管辖权提出异议的权利。（4）根据本条规则提出的申请（a）必须在提交送达确认书后14天内提出；（b）有证据支持。（5）如果被告（a）提交了送达确认书；且（b）未在第（4）款规定的期限内提出申请，他将被视为已接受法院审理请求的管辖权。”

CPR 11, so far as relevant, provides

"(1)A defendant who wishes to –
(a)   dispute the court's jurisdiction to try the claim; or
(b)   argue that the court should not exercise its jurisdiction may apply to the court for an order declaring that it has no such jurisdiction or should not exercise any jurisdiction which it may have.
(2)   A defendant who wishes to make such an application must first file an acknowledgment of service in accordance with Part 10.
(3)   A defendant who files an acknowledgment of service does not, by doing so lose any right that he may have to dispute the court's jurisdiction.
(4)   An application under this rule must–
(a)   be made within 14 days after filing an acknowledgment of service; and
(b)   be supported by evidence.
(5)   If the defendant –
(a)   files an acknowledgment of service; and
(b)   does not make such an application within the period specified in paragraph (4), he is to be treated as having accepted that the court has jurisdiction to try the claim."

Global Multimedia v Ara Media [2007] 1 All ER (Comm)1170案列出了确定某一行为是否等同于接受管辖权的标准。就当前目的而言，这些标准可以总结为：（1）采用的是客观标准；（2）要使所依据的行为等同于接受管辖权，该行为必须在所有情况下均明确，即对该行为的唯一可能的解释是表达了在英国审理案件的意图；（3）如果基于接受管辖权协议以外的理由也可以解释该行为，那么这足以阻止接受管辖权。（The test to be applied in determining whether conduct amounts to submission to the jurisdiction is set out in Global Multimedia v Ara Media [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 1170 at [27]to [28], quoting from the judgment of Patten J in SMAY Investments v Sachdev [2003] EWHC 474. For present purposes,this can be summarised as follows: (1) the test is objective; (2) to amount to submission to the jurisdiction, the conduct relied upon must, in all the circumstances, be unequivocal i.e. such that the only possible explanation for it is an intention to have the case tried in England; (3)     ifthe conduct relied upon is explicable on grounds other than agreement to accept the jurisdiction, then that is sufficient to prevent there having been submission.）

3. 分析与结论

（1）被告是否已经接受管辖权

原告认为，被告的以下行为构成接受管辖权：（1）被告请求延长提交答辩状的时间；（2）被告既没有在期限届满前提出管辖权异议，也没有在期限届满前请求延长期限。法院援引Global, SMAY, Mouly vAIG Europe [2016] EWHC 1794 (QB)案（其中援引了Texan Management Limited v Pacific Electric Wire & Cable CompanyLimited [2009] UKPC 46案）案的观点认为，请求延长提交答辩状的期限与继续对管辖权提出异议并不矛盾，第一个行为本身显然不足以构成接受管辖权。

至于第二个行为，即没有在规定期限内提出管辖权异议，法院认为，未能在规定期限内提出管辖权异议并因此根据《民事诉讼法》第11（5）条被视为接受管辖权，这种接受并非不可撤销。如果此种接受不可撤销，那么法院追溯延长申请期限的权力将完全没有意义。因此，法院接受被告的意见，即仅凭迟延提出管辖权异议本身并不足以构成明确的接受管辖权（A failure to apply within the prescribed time to challenge jurisdiction and the resultant deemed submission to the jurisdiction pursuant to CPR 11(5) is not in my judgment an irrevocable submission. If that were so, the court's power retrospectively to extend time for making the application would be completely pointless. I therefore accept the defendant's submission that merely being late in making an application to challenge jurisdiction is not of itself sufficient to be an unequivocal submission.）

因此，法院认为，被告没有接受管辖权。

（2）延长提交管辖权异议的期限

被告律师认为在本案中申请延长提交管辖权异议的期限是必要的，这属于Denton案原则的范围。原告没有对被告的该申请表示反对。法院表示，在原告未表示反对的情况下，法院愿意行使自由裁量权审议被告提出的救济申请。

在本案中，被告迟延了13周提交申请，被告律师也承认这种迟延是重大和严重的迟延，且没有任何良好的迟延理由。因此，法院必须考虑在所有情况下，包括《民事诉讼法》第3.9条特别列明的情况（即对于以合适的费用进行有效诉讼的需求，对于强制遵守法院规则的需求等等），法院公正地处理该项申请是否正确（I must therefore consider whether it would be right in all the circumstances, including those specifically identified in CPR 3.9 (i.e. the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and the need to enforce compliance with rules of court, etc) so as to enable the court to deal with the application justly）。

为此，法院考虑了如下相关事实：首先，原告保持中立，没有反对被告的申请，也未主张其遭受任何侵害；其次，被告的救济申请并没有对本申请或本请求中任何其他申请的进行产生任何不利影响。第三，从送达确认书中可以清楚看出，管辖权将成为一个争议事项。第四，尽管原告提交了反对该申请的证据，但在原告律师提出概要性论点之前，原告并没有提出该论点。最后，法院认为，考虑到这些情况，剥夺被告在这项金额巨大的索赔中提出管辖权异议的权利是不成比例的制裁。（In doing so the following factors are in my judgment relevant. First, as noted, the claimant is neutral and does not assert that it has suffered any prejudice. Secondly, the application for relief has not had any adverse impact on the conduct of this application or any other applications in this claim. It has not affected the time allowed by the court for the application and has had no adverse impact on other court users. Thirdly, it was clear from the acknowledgement of service that jurisdiction was going to be in issue – unlike Mouly, where the claimant was not on notice of the jurisdiction issue. Fourthly, the claimant did not raise the point until its advocate's skeleton argument, even though it has filed evidence in opposition to the application. Finally, in my judgment, it would in all these circumstances be a disproportionate sanction to deprive the defendant of his ability to contest jurisdiction in this claim for a very substantial amount of money.）

出于上述理由，法院授予了救济并批准延长被告提出申请的期限。

（3）关于第17.3条的解释

《个人担保函》第17.3条规定：“17.3 选择诉讼：（a）尽管有第17.2条（仲裁）的规定，（原告）可以通过书面通知（被告）要求所有争议或特定争议由英国法院专属解决。诉讼通知应当载明下列事项：（i）出现了争议；（ii）争议当事人；和（iii）将由DIFC法院解决的争议的性质。

（b）如果（原告）发出诉讼通知，当事人同意：（i）DIFC法院对任何此类诉讼通知所涉及的任何争议具有专属管辖权；（ii）DIFC法院是解决争议的最适当和最方便的法院，因此，任何一方均不得提出相反的意见，并且各方均放弃基于非方便法院或与财务文件相关程序有关的其他理由对DIFC法院提出异议。（iii）当事人不能就诉讼通知中规定的争议启动仲裁程序，就该等争议启动的任何仲裁程序将被终止。

（c）本条款只对（原告）适用。因此，不妨碍（原告）在任何其他有管辖权的法院就争议提起诉讼。在法律允许的范围内，（原告）可在任何司法管辖区同时提起诉讼。”

首先，第17.3条（a）款出现了“英国法院”和“DIFC法院”的措辞。显然，按字面意思解释，该款的两个词存在自相矛盾之处。根据Lewison的《合同法解释》一书中的观点，如果：（1）书面文书的表面存在明显错误，且（2）这种错误必须被纠正，法院可以纠正书面文书中的此种错误（The court can correct a mistake in a written instrument where it is satisfied that (i) that there is a clear mistake on the face of the instrument and (ii) it is clear whatcorrection ought to be made in order to cure it: Lewison, The Interpretation of Contracts, 6th Ed. at [9.01]）。鉴于“DIFC法院”出现了多次，而“英国法院”只出现了一次，犯一次错误的可能性比多次犯相同错误的可能性大，故法院赞同被告的观点认为，改正该条款矛盾的方法是，将“英国法院”更改为“DIFC法院”。

随后，法院继续审理第17.3条（b）款和（c）款的解释问题。尽管当事人在庭审过程中充分论证了不同的论点，但当事人最终同意并邀请法院在认定涉案信函属于根据第17.3（a）条发送的诉讼通知的基础上分析其效力。（Although arguments to the contrary were ventilated in the course of the hearing, both sides agreed and invited me to proceed on the basis that the Letter was a Litigation Notice pursuant to cl. 17.3(a). I turn therefore to consider its effect.）

被告认为，诉讼通知的目的是使原告能够选择DIFC法院并使其对任何争议拥有专属管辖权。在发送诉讼通知前，原告可以根据17.3条（c）款自由选择在任何有管辖权的法院提起诉讼，但一旦发送诉讼通知，双方当事人都受第17.3条（b）款的约束，不能再提起仲裁，不能对DIFC法院的专属管辖权提出异议，故原告只能向DIFC法院提起诉讼。原告则认为第17.3条（c）款赋予了原告在任何有管辖权的法院提起诉讼的充分自由，无论其是否发送了诉讼通知，且该款只对原告适用。为此，原告援引了Mauritius CommercialBank Ltd v Hestia Holdings Ltd [2013] EWHC 1328 (Comm)案和Lornamead Acquisitions Limited v Kaupthing Bank [2011] EWHC 2611 (Comm)案的判决以支持其观点。

针对当事人的分歧，法院支持了原告的观点认为，第17.3条（b）款和（c）款的效果是只有被告受（b）款的约束。这一效果可以通过在起草时明文规定来实现，但这并不影响这一点。第17.3条中使用的起草语言是针对非对称管辖权条款的标准起草方式——例如Mauritius Commercial Bank and Lornamead案也使用了实质上相同的条款，在该案中，这些条款被解释为原告所主张的意思。如果采纳被告的解释，意味着第17.3条（c）款的第一个句子将完全失去效力，或只剩下毫无意义功能，即重申只有原告有权发送诉讼通知。（In my judgment, the net effect of clauses (b) and (c) is that only the defendant is bound by clause (b). The fact that this effect could have been achieved with drafting that expressly so provided does not detract from this. The drafting used in clause 17.3 is the standard drafting for asymmetric jurisdiction clauses - such as the materially identical clauses in Mauritius Commercial Bank and Lornamead, which were construed with the meaning contended for by the claimant. The defendant's construction would also mean that the first sentence in clause (c) would either have no meaning at all, or have the pointless function of reiterating that only the claimant has the right to serve a Litigation Notice.）

综上所述，针对前述的争议焦点，法院得出以下结论：（1）被告在提出申请前未接受管辖权；（2）法院批准延长被告提出申请的期限；（3）经适当解释，第17.3条所提及的“英国法院”是指DIFC法院；（4）这封信函是诉讼通知；（5）原告有权根据《个人担保函》第17.3（c）条的理由向英国法院提起诉讼。因此，法院驳回了被告根据《民事诉讼法》第11条提出的请求法院宣布其不具有（或不应行使）管辖权的申请。

三、评论

法院在本案中指出，根据《民事诉讼法》第11（5）条，当事人未能在规定期限内提出管辖权异议将被视为接受管辖权，但这种接受管辖权可以被撤销，被视为接受管辖权的当事人可以请求法院延长提交申请的期限，继而根据《民事诉讼法》第11条提出申请，请求法院宣布其不具有或不应行使管辖权。在本案中，虽然被告提出申请时存在重大和严重的迟延，且没有任何良好的迟延理由。但是，法院考虑到所有情况，认为剥夺被告在这项金额巨大的索赔中提出管辖权异议的权利是不成比例的制裁。因此，法院同意审理被告提出的申请，确认法院是否不具有或不应行使管辖权。

被告提出申请的依据集中在非对称性管辖权条款的解释方面。在本案中，《个人担保函》第17.3条（b）款规定，当原告发送诉讼通知时，DIFC法院具有专属管辖权；第17.3条（c）款规定原告有权在任何其他有管辖权的法院就争议提起诉讼。当事人的分歧在于，如果原告发送了诉讼通知，是否还能根据（c）款在其他有管辖权的法院（而非DIFC法院）提起诉讼。法院经审理后支持了原告的观点，使所有条款（尤其是第17.3条（c）款）都产生相应效力，认为《个人担保函》第17.3条（b）款只对被告有约束力，无论是否发送诉讼通知，原告都可以根据（c）款在其他有管辖权的法院，如本案中的英国法院，提起诉讼。