【正文】 have his conduct criticised without being given an opportunity for replying or explaining.”。以上Donaldson大法官的判決內(nèi)容大致上是說申請人/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，所以仲裁對裁決書的上訴或提出質(zhì)疑，也沒有必須去正式通知仲裁員。但Donaldson大法官對這種做法好像不太認(rèn)同，原因也可以估計到，就是非正式通知的話會導(dǎo)致受到攻擊的仲裁員難以去維護(hù)他自己的名譽(yù)并參與法院有關(guān)程序，他會先要向法院申請批準(zhǔn)他去參與作為第二被告，這樣才有機(jī)會出庭作出抗辯。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(dá)給受影響的仲裁員。他就有一個選擇去(a)作為當(dāng)事人的一方全面與積極的參與法院的程序；(b)提供給法院一份有關(guān)事實(shí)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。這一個做法的原因是根據(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)的機(jī)會。其中(a)的選擇，也已經(jīng)在1996年《英國仲裁法》之Section 24(5)有去明示規(guī)定，說：“The arbitrator concerned is entitled to appear and be heard by the court before it makes any order under this section.”。估計在現(xiàn)實(shí)中，受到攻擊仲裁員選擇(a)做法不應(yīng)該是太多，因為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，但畢竟還是有可能去這樣做，請參閱Miller Construction Ltd v James Moore Earthmoving (2001) 2 All ER (Comm.) 598與Norbrook Labratories Ltd v Tank (2006) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 485。另要去說明的是受到攻擊仲裁員固然要正式收到有關(guān)申請的通知，但其他仲裁庭的成員即使不受到攻擊也應(yīng)該去向他們送達(dá)。畢竟他們會關(guān)心這一個法律的行動，因為根據(jù)1996年《英國仲裁法》之Section 24(3)，說明即使向法院作出申請去趕走仲裁員，仲裁庭還是可以繼續(xù)推進(jìn)仲裁程序并作出一個裁決書。所以，會有情況是在開庭前的幾天，其中一方當(dāng)事人，例如是被告，向法院作出申請要把其中一位仲裁員趕走，并同時向仲裁庭申請把開庭押后。這一來，即使是沒有受到攻擊的仲裁庭成員也會希望知道多一點(diǎn)有關(guān)法院申請的資料，以作出決定到底開庭是推進(jìn)還是押后。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可能來自不同國家，所以送達(dá)給他們可能會帶來延誤與困難。把“仲裁爭議申請表”（Arbitration Claim Form）或以前稱為的傳票去送達(dá)給英國以外的當(dāng)事人是需要先取得法院的允許：CPR (1)，這方面可參閱Vale da Doce Novegavcao v Shanghai Steel (2000) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1。所以有判例說是即使沒有把傳票送達(dá)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/與把裁決書撤銷的申請去推進(jìn)并處理。例如在Bank Mellat v. GAA Development (1988) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 44，就涉及了一位仲裁員是來自伊朗，另一位仲裁員是來自瑞典，仲裁庭只有一位仲裁員才是住在英國的御用大律師。顯然，只有把傳票送達(dá)給住在英國的一位仲裁員才是比較容易。在裁決書作出之后向英國法院申請撤銷裁決書的行動中，法院就允許申請去推進(jìn)而不必去把傳票送達(dá)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 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 amp。 Sons, [1977] 1 Lloyd’s . 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 would 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.”。？這帶來了一個關(guān)心就是如果受到攻擊的仲裁員選擇上一段第(c)的做法，也就是不去理會法院的訴訟，會否有一個危險被視為是缺席，而面對在申請人如果成功去把他趕走或者把裁決書撤銷的同時，要該仲裁員承擔(dān)法院的訴訟費(fèi)用。這在Port Sudan Cotton Co. v. Govindaswamy Chettiar amp。 Sons (1977) 1 Lloyd’s 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 umpire or arbitrator unless the facts are wholly exceptional, ., 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 case, 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 relation 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 plaint fails, the arbitrators will be entitled to an order for costs if they appear.”。有關(guān)這一個訴訟費(fèi)用的問題，根據(jù)這一個先例，Mustill amp。 Boyd on 《Commercial Arbitration》第二版之553頁的腳注有進(jìn)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 save in exceptional circumstances, . 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《Arbitration Law》 Sudan Cotton Co. v. Govindaswamy Chettiar amp。 Sons (1977) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 166先例說：“[the case] which also decides that the arbitrators 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.”。 1996年《英國仲裁法》下的改變普通法的地位應(yīng)該是在1996年《英國仲裁法》之后有了一定改變，是更加明確的是這個趕走仲裁員或者撤銷裁決書的申請必須通知受到攻擊的仲裁員。另一個可能是有關(guān)的改變是該立法的Section 29給與仲裁員對他疏忽的豁免權(quán)，這可能表示英國法院不應(yīng)該對仲裁員作出任何承擔(dān)訴訟費(fèi)用的命令，即使是決定把他趕走，除非涉及了該仲裁員的惡意行為，例如是貪污受賄。有關(guān)什么算是“通知”，可去介紹Bruce Harris先生等所著的《The Arbitration Act 1996—A Commentary》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 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 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《英國仲裁法》下，會有較多受到攻擊要把他趕走的仲裁員出庭抗辯，好像Norbrook Labratories Ltd v Tank (2006) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 485先例的仲裁員。另在特許仲裁員學(xué)會的刊物《Arbitration》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申請因為法律觀點(diǎn)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(dāng)事人說是他無意去參與，說：