【正文】 不去出庭的話就會有機會讓原告取得一個缺席的法院判決。以上Donaldson大法官的判決內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，根據的是一本權威著作的說法，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疑，也沒有必須去正式通知仲裁員。畢竟他們會關心這一個法律的行動，因為根據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)推進仲裁程序并作出一個裁決書。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而不必去把傳票送達給仲裁員。另可以去節(jié)錄Robert Merkin教授所著的《Arbitration Law》 Sudan Cotton Co. v. Govindaswamy Chettiar amp。針對法律觀點的上訴去把仲裁員作為被告之一看來在1996年《英國仲裁法》下是沒有必要，這可接下去介紹另一本權威書籍有更明確的指引與做法。 if service has 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 acknowledge 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 claimant’s duty to satisfy 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.”。有了原告這一個同意，仲裁員就幾乎可以肯定不會在他不知情的情況下對他作出判決，要求他承擔訴訟費用。香港與英國的仲裁法（《香港仲裁條例》之Section 2GM與1996年《英國仲裁法》之Section 29）也都盡量去拉近兩者的距離，并都賦予仲裁員與法官同樣的豁免權。 for it is every day’s practice for the arbitrator to make 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.”。仲裁員也不會涉及“訴訟特權”（litigation privilege），這種特權主要也就是當事人與律師之間的特權。這帶來一種情況就是雙方當事人如果對仲裁程序中，特別在仲裁員面前開庭的某一個事實有爭議，會是仲裁員可以去作為一個最理想的事實證人。在上述已經介紹過的蘇格蘭案件Cooperative Wholesale Society Ltd v. Ravenseft Properties Ltd ()中，Hope勛爵也說：“Where an action for the reduction of an award depends on facts which are not agreed, a proof will be required. The normal rule apply in such cases in order to determine what evidence is admissible and by what method disputed facts may be proved. The arbiter himself, however, is in a special position, because once he has issued his award it is not petent for him to modify or explain it in any way. He may be examined as a witness for certain purposes, particularly as to his actings in the course of the submission where it is suggested that some irregularity has occurred. It has also been held to be petent to examine him as to what matters he took into account in arriving at his award when it was alleged that he had proceeded ultra fines promissi in a way which was not apparent from the face of the award. An arbiter should be allowed the opportunity to protect himself against an allegation of misconduct, such as that he failed to determine a matter which was properly before him, by giving evidence as to what he did decide. …”。案情是該批貨物在到達中國卸港后，根據商檢結果，被發(fā)現(xiàn)大量生銹而且被商檢認為生銹是由于已經生產后很久才會發(fā)生。當時筆者代表的一方大吃一驚，因為雙方只是剛開始文書請求，什么證據也沒有提供，他憑什么能夠得出這樣的結論？至于爭議是有關鍍鋅鐵生銹以及航次時間比較長，這有可能只是賣方律師在委任他的時候所作的簡單案情介紹。但這里最大的考慮就是證據十分有問題，估計成功機會很低?，F(xiàn)在也可以去看看其他重要普通法國家在這一方面的地位，這就是加拿大。在開庭前的幾天即10月14日，被告的代表律師寫了一封信函給受到攻擊的仲裁員，向他查問有關的記憶。s recollections were forwarded to me on the same day the Arbitrator responded, the objection not to have been made aware of your contact with the Arbitrator in advance and not to have had an opportunity to respond to your request to the Arbitrator before the Arbitrator responded remains.”。但申請人/原告代表律師表示反對，在給被告律師的信函中說：“(1) Expanding on what we stated earlier [指昨天的信函], we believe the continued involvement of the Arbitrator is improper. The Arbitrator rendered [在裁決書作出了她的決定] and reasons for decision as set out in the Arbitration Award. The appeal and review are based on that Award and the record. It is inappropriate to further attempt to involve the Arbitrator as this could lead to the perception that the Arbitrator...is intent on upholding that particular Award or is now part of the respondent39。注意是該次開庭并沒有安排開庭記錄。畢竟，在很多這種申請中，仲裁員會提供給法院宣誓書或證人證言解釋有關的事實。但中方委任的買方仲裁員很快就表明他聽到的也好像是賣方律師所聽到的一句。由于只是討論程序上的問題，所以在該預先會議上并沒有安排現(xiàn)場的錄音以及開庭記錄。但沒有開庭記錄的情況在現(xiàn)在也不是沒有，筆者（楊良宜）在以前處理案件時就有相關的經驗。 so that we might be put in possession of the history of the litigation before the umpire up to the time when he proceeded to make his award. But there it appears to me the right of asking questions of the umpire ceased….”。通常只是由雙方代表律師與仲裁員自己去盡量針對大家都說過些什么把每一個字記錄下來，也不會在每一天開庭后互相核對與糾正自己的記錄，故此這種記錄有錯誤或者遺漏是完全有可能的。很多事實證人也會涉及了享有特權的證據可以拒絕提供或回應盤問，但針對仲裁員作為證人就好像不大會涉及這一方面。該先例是Duke of Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Board of Works (Buccleuch) (187172) . 418，Cleasby男爵是這樣說：“With regard to the petency 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 their conduct being made the subject of crossexamination and ment (to which hardly any limit could be put) in relation to proceedings before them。 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？表面看來該問題的答案是不明確。 受到攻擊仲裁員比較安全的做法所以，一種做法就是倫敦仲裁員在知道原告這一個法院行動后（通過送達），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訊，并同時答應會在有必要提供給法院解釋的時候去做出宣誓書或證人證言，通過雙方當事人去交出給法院。如果他不這樣做就會失去抗辯的機會。另在特許仲裁員學會的刊物《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Section 69申請因為法律觀點錯誤的上訴，他也是被列為是第二被告。有關這一個訴訟費用的問題，根據這一個先例，Mustill amp。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。估計在現(xiàn)實中，受到攻擊仲裁員選擇(a)做法不應該是太多，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。該先例的案情是把“利物浦棉花協(xié)會”（Liverpool Cotton Association）的機構仲裁的裁決書撤銷。針對原告申請去把他趕走，該仲裁員還會是比較關心。在上述2種情況的有關條文中，都有明確規(guī)定向法院作出申請的一方要“通知”受到攻擊的仲裁庭或仲裁庭個別成員。 當事人在什么情形下去法院尋求趕走/挑戰(zhàn)仲裁員