【正文】 ., whether both...[2個(gè)爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端] were before me and whether the award I would make would be interim or final. We discussed this, and counsel for the parties agreed that both...[2個(gè)爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端] were before me. It is my recollection that at the end of submissions, when we were gathering up the documents, we all acknowledged that the Arbitration Agreement, as originally drafted, only referred to...[第一個(gè)爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端] and should also have referred to...[第二個(gè)爭(zhēng)議/爭(zhēng)端]....You and...[申請(qǐng)人/原告的代表律師] attended to amending the first clause and you both initialed the change.”。所以結(jié)果就不了了之，只是在事后的仲裁程序中多次請(qǐng)求2位仲裁員要客觀根據(jù)證據(jù)去看待這個(gè)爭(zhēng)議。中方委任的是一位有名的在香港執(zhí)業(yè)律師（是一位英國(guó)人），歐洲的賣方作為被告委任的是一位英國(guó)的教授。在同一個(gè)先例，Cairns勛爵也補(bǔ)充說(shuō)從仲裁程序開(kāi)始到要去作出裁決書(shū)的整個(gè)階段所發(fā)生的事實(shí)都可以向仲裁員取證。第二個(gè)比較更近期的案件想介紹是Cooperative Wholesale Society Ltd v. Ravenseft Properties Ltd () (2002) . 644（但這只是一個(gè)蘇格蘭的案例），Hope勛爵是這樣說(shuō)：“Both the arbiter and his clerk may, however, be called as witnesses to the res gestae of the arbitration, that is to say to the actings of the parties, the clerk or the arbiter himself, in so far as these may be relevant to the points at issue in any subsequent litigation. They are in no different position, when dealing with their actings and other matters of procedure, than any other witness who speaks to facts which are within his own knowledge.”。2. 法院傳召仲裁員作為事實(shí)證人出庭舉證但即使原告同意不要求受到攻擊仲裁員出庭或是根據(jù)普通法該仲裁員也可以選擇不去參與，也不代表在有必要的情況下不要求該仲裁員出庭或接受盤問(wèn)，特別是大家對(duì)仲裁過(guò)程中的事實(shí)有爭(zhēng)議，需要仲裁員去做出澄清。但在其他情況的通知，主要是根據(jù)Sections 6769對(duì)裁決書(shū)向法院申請(qǐng)救濟(jì)，就不應(yīng)該把仲裁員作為被告之一，只要把仲裁爭(zhēng)議申請(qǐng)表的一份副本給他作為資料就已經(jīng)足夠。？這帶來(lái)了一個(gè)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(huì)法院的訴訟，會(huì)否有一個(gè)危險(xiǎn)被視為是缺席，而面對(duì)在申請(qǐng)人如果成功去把他趕走或者把裁決書(shū)撤銷的同時(shí)，要該仲裁員承擔(dān)法院的訴訟費(fèi)用。他就有一個(gè)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(shū)；(c)不采取任何行動(dòng)去參與，可被假設(shè)為他接受法院最后做出的任何判決。同樣是在裁決書(shū)撤銷的申請(qǐng)，如果被告也是認(rèn)同與不作出爭(zhēng)辯，就完全可以與原告達(dá)成和解協(xié)議，例如只需要支付裁決書(shū)判下來(lái)一半的金額，或是不理會(huì)雙方認(rèn)為判錯(cuò)的裁決書(shū)應(yīng)該在另一個(gè)新成立的仲裁庭去重新再來(lái)，反正是雙方有訂約自由，無(wú)須花錢去法院尋求撤銷裁決書(shū)的救濟(jì)。對(duì)受攻擊的仲裁員而言，由于去把他趕走的申請(qǐng)往往會(huì)涉及申請(qǐng)人/原告會(huì)作出過(guò)火或夸大的指控，所以需要去參與以及向法院作出解釋或反駁的必要性也大大提高。第四章 仲裁員受到當(dāng)事人攻擊（如向法院申請(qǐng)趕走）的應(yīng)對(duì)1. 當(dāng)事人去法院尋求趕走仲裁員或?qū)Σ脹Q書(shū)的救濟(jì)應(yīng)否通知受影響的仲裁員本章所針對(duì)的問(wèn)題不像有很多資料或探討。這是相比已經(jīng)作出了裁決書(shū)但敗訴方向法院根據(jù)Section 68的仲裁程序上“嚴(yán)重不正常” (serious irregularity)申請(qǐng)把裁決書(shū)撤銷而言仲裁員不需要太過(guò)擔(dān)心。既然第一被告是利益相關(guān)而必須作出對(duì)抗，所以作為仲裁員的第二被告事實(shí)上是沒(méi)有必要去參與法院的訴訟。這一個(gè)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(gè)解釋與回應(yīng)的機(jī)會(huì)。這在Port Sudan Cotton Co. v. Govindaswamy Chettiar amp。該書(shū)在299300頁(yè)是這樣說(shuō)：“Where under the 1996 Act the arbitrators must be made defendants, the arbitration claim form and acpanying 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 notice 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.”。例如，在開(kāi)庭時(shí)大家講過(guò)什么話而且沒(méi)有 “開(kāi)庭記錄”（transcript）。 仲裁員作為證人可以提供給法院的證據(jù)如果可以傳召仲裁員作為證人，就涉及了可去向他盤問(wèn)或能去要求他提供證據(jù)的范圍。顯然，這一個(gè)階段也包括了開(kāi)庭。為了節(jié)省時(shí)間與費(fèi)用，雙方也同意不需要去委任第三位仲裁員，而僅僅由該2位仲裁員去處理程序上的問(wèn)題就已經(jīng)足夠?？上У氖牵蟹阶詈筮€是敗訴，而且就是在這一點(diǎn)。申請(qǐng)人/原告的代表律師對(duì)延誤收到被告律師給仲裁員的信函很不滿，因?yàn)檫@是剝奪了他可以跟進(jìn)的機(jī)會(huì)，讓仲裁員聽(tīng)了雙方意見(jiàn)/看法才作出回應(yīng)。而在同一天，仲裁員就已經(jīng)針對(duì)被告律師的信函作出了回復(fù)，說(shuō)：“My recollection is that the question of whether the hearing would be for a final or interim decision was discussed at the outset of the hearing, when I asked for clarification about the issues that were before me. At the beginning of the hearing, I expressed my uncertainty as to the issues that were actually before me。至于買方仲裁員，由于他是一位著名的律師，恐怕去盤問(wèn)也不大可能問(wèn)得出什么，反而會(huì)得罪了他。于是中國(guó)買方根據(jù)買賣合約開(kāi)始了香港仲裁，筆者代表中國(guó)買方并且很快雙方都委任了各自的仲裁員。 or he might prove that claim B. was objected to and rejected, or that it was after objection received. He might, in short, give any evidence for the purpose of shewing (showing) what was the subjectmatter into which he was inquiring, and upon which his judgment therefore was to be founded. This would enable us to judge whether he was acting within his jurisdiction or not, for a person exceeds his jurisdiction by prosecuting a judicial inquiry in a matter over which he has no jurisdiction, quite independent of the judgment eventually given. And it deserves notice, that as to this evidence the umpire would be no better witness than any other person, and would not have it in his power afterwards, by his own evidence, to sustain or destroy the award. He could be corrected by any other person present at the proceedings, including the shorthand writer, if there was one.”。第一個(gè)是Leiserach v. Schalit (1934) 2 KB 353，Humphreys大法官在處理一個(gè)想去把裁決書(shū)撤銷的申請(qǐng)時(shí)發(fā)覺(jué)有一個(gè)仲裁中的事實(shí)無(wú)法去認(rèn)定，他同意一方當(dāng)事人的申請(qǐng)去傳召仲裁員作為事實(shí)證人，說(shuō)：“This is a case in which 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 Court 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 what it is unable to ascertain from a perusal of the affidavits on one side and the other – namely, what are the essential facts of the case. On that ground and on that ground only the Court accedes to the application to call as witnesses both the gentlemen who acted as arbitrators in the matter.”。頂多是將來(lái)取不回來(lái)他為了協(xié)助法院作出宣誓書(shū)的有關(guān)費(fèi)用（這是指仲裁員花時(shí)間去作出宣誓書(shū)），但這不是需要支付出去給第三者，所以仲裁員將其當(dāng)作是壞帳或者是收不回來(lái)的工作時(shí)間產(chǎn)生的費(fèi)用，這也比較容易接受。根據(jù)Section 24把仲裁員趕走（另在Section 28與Section 56有關(guān)仲裁員的費(fèi)用），申請(qǐng)人/原告是必須把仲裁員作為是被告之一，并必須要去送達(dá)仲裁爭(zhēng)議申請(qǐng)表。 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 an