【正文】 s cause as to why...[the] decision should not be appealed and reviewed or that there is an attempt to interfere with the right of the parties to have the matter judicially considered.(2) The record must stand as is. It cannot be amended, buttressed, further explained or justified after an appeal/review [has been] launched. The procedures followed at the [arbitration] hearing must be ascertained from the record. In procedural matters, the appearance of what was done is as important as what was actually done.(3) Since your request for the Arbitrator39。而事實(shí)上，該裁決書寫得比較不明朗與有矛盾，特別是針對(duì)仲裁員可以去裁決哪一些爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端的管轄權(quán)。既然去這樣做，就沒(méi)有理由不可以去傳召他接受盤問(wèn)。結(jié)果預(yù)先會(huì)議就是在這種不愉快的情況下草草結(jié)束，接下去很快就是中方委任了一位著名的大律師，試圖去把賣方委任的仲裁員趕走。在預(yù)先會(huì)議中途，對(duì)方委任的仲裁員顯然并不是很熟悉仲裁，隨口就講出“這票貨物之所以會(huì)生銹顯然是因?yàn)楹酱螘r(shí)間比較長(zhǎng)”這一句對(duì)中國(guó)買方十分不利的話。這是一個(gè)有關(guān)“鍍鋅鐵”（galvanized steel）買賣合約的爭(zhēng)議。在Ward v. Shell Mex and BP Ltd (1952) 1 . 280先例中，Streatfield大法官說(shuō)：“It seems to me that as applied to an arbitrator, still more so to one of two arbitrators, that case is illuminating and indicates that although an arbitrator may be called on to give evidence as to what took place in the hearing before him, what issues were raised, and so on, it is not petent, nor is it relevant, for him to explain, and still less vary, the award which he gave and which must stand upon its own footing.”。事實(shí)上，法律也沒(méi)有要求仲裁員必須要作出文書記錄，所以經(jīng)常會(huì)有仲裁員在一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)短的開(kāi)庭根本沒(méi)有作出任何的記錄或頂多只是針對(duì)要點(diǎn)作出記錄。仲裁員是不會(huì)涉及雙方的和解談判，所以不存在有“無(wú)損害特權(quán)”（without prejudice privilege）的證據(jù)。 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 examined. But those objections do not apply at all to a person selected as arbitrator for the particular occasion by the parties, and he es within the general obligation of being bound to give evidence. The practice entirely agrees with this。這是因?yàn)橐恢庇姓f(shuō)法是仲裁員與法官的工作性質(zhì)、內(nèi)容與地位都十分相似，仲裁員還被稱為是 “私人法官”（private judge）。原告一般情況下也只是需要對(duì)方當(dāng)事人作為被告去出庭應(yīng)訊，所以通常都會(huì)同意。這在《The Practice and Procedure of The Commercial Court》一書之300頁(yè)說(shuō)：“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。但他寫了一封信給法院并抄本給當(dāng)事人說(shuō)是他無(wú)意去參與，說(shuō)：“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 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.”。 Boyd on 《Commercial Arbitration》第二版之553頁(yè)的腳注有進(jìn)一步分析說(shuō)：“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.”。顯然，只有把傳票送達(dá)給住在英國(guó)的一位仲裁員才是比較容易。另要去說(shuō)明的是受到攻擊仲裁員固然要正式收到有關(guān)申請(qǐng)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)。有關(guān)法院的撤銷行動(dòng)應(yīng)該怎樣通知棉花協(xié)會(huì)，Donaldson大法官是這樣說(shuō)： “The first question which arises is whether an arbitrator or umpire should be served with a notice of motion. In the present case the board (棉花協(xié)會(huì)) was told informally of the notice of motion and was given a copy. This was regarded by the buyers’ (申請(qǐng)撤銷裁決書的一方) solicitors as going further than was strictly necessary, because Russell on Arbitration (18th ed.) states at that: ‘Notice of motion must be 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 Vice Chancellor Sir Richard Mallins in Moseley v. Simpson, (1873) . 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, 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 universal 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 any 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 criticised without being given an opportunity for replying or explaining.”。但針對(duì)原告申請(qǐng)把敗訴的裁決書撤銷，該仲裁員恐怕會(huì)是漠不關(guān)心。而一般的通知做法，就是申請(qǐng)方/原告，在“仲裁爭(zhēng)議申請(qǐng)表”（Arbitration Claim Form，相等于之前的傳票或英文的Notice of Motion）去把對(duì)方當(dāng)事人列為第一被告，而受到攻擊的仲裁員就列為第二被告。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 arbitrator 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。第二就是今天的大氣候就是法院盡量不要去干預(yù)仲裁，除非是一個(gè)十分極端的情況。又或是，一方當(dāng)事人去法院尋求救濟(jì)是否可以去傳召受到攻擊的仲裁員作為事實(shí)證人。其中是仲裁員受到一方當(dāng)事人的攻擊去法院尋求救濟(jì)如果是發(fā)生在作出裁決書（特別是最后裁決書）之后，會(huì)是可以感覺(jué)置身事外不必太過(guò)擔(dān)心。這種極端的情況是要法院認(rèn)為仲裁員的行為已經(jīng)嚴(yán)重至法院相信他是沒(méi)有辦法公正與恰當(dāng)?shù)耐瓿蛇@一仲裁。 (b) that he does not possess the qualifications required by the arbitration agreement。之后就是去把該申請(qǐng)表“送達(dá)”（service）給所有的被告，這就完成了通知的要求。當(dāng)然，