【正文】 d 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.”。上面節(jié)錄的最后一段是說：現(xiàn)代的做法是針對(duì)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。如果被告是認(rèn)同與不作出爭辯，在仲裁程序中途就完全可以與原告達(dá)成協(xié)議，受到攻擊的仲裁員就非走不可了，根本不必花錢去英國法院把該仲裁員趕走。光是一方當(dāng)事人對(duì)該仲裁員失去了信心是不足夠去說服法院去把該仲裁員趕走：Conder Structures v Kvaerner Construction Ltd. (1999) . 305.。這方面問題也沒有在1996年《英國仲裁法》中有明確針對(duì)，更加不會(huì)在相對(duì)沒有那么廣泛的《香港仲裁條例》中有針對(duì)。在本文，就是去探討仲裁員面對(duì)這種情況如何去應(yīng)對(duì)。畢竟，仲裁員會(huì)要委任代表律師，這可不是一筆小錢。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.”。 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.”。 針對(duì)第一種情況也就是根據(jù)Section 24要把仲裁員趕走，受到攻擊的仲裁員作為被告之一就要在送達(dá)的14天內(nèi)承認(rèn)送達(dá)。這一來，仲裁員如果需要出庭作為事實(shí)證人就有必要知道什么是他必須要講，什么是他不需要講或回應(yīng)。顯然，仲裁員是不必提供一些與該法院訴訟無關(guān)的證據(jù)。他是這樣說：“As regards the reception of the evidence, in my opinion the line has been most properly and accurately drawn by Mr. Baron Cleasby. It appears to me that upon every point which may be considered to be a matter of fact with reference to the making of the award, the evidence of the arbitrator or umpire was properly admissible. He was properly asked what had been the course which the argument before him had taken – what claims were made and what claims were admitted。之后雙方法律代表和仲裁員召開了一個(gè)面對(duì)面的“預(yù)先會(huì)議”（preliminary meeting）去商討接下去的仲裁程序如何進(jìn)行。 加拿大的一個(gè)有關(guān)案件介紹根據(jù)英國普通法地位的分析，已經(jīng)介紹過的是仲裁員可以被傳召作為證人。發(fā)展下去是被告律師傳召該獨(dú)任仲裁員作為證人并把傳票送達(dá)給他。該信函雖然是注明抄本給申請(qǐng)人/原告的代表律師，但實(shí)際上隔了幾天，到了10月18日才傳真給了原告代表律師。而其中與大律師的會(huì)議中大家也談到了傳召2位仲裁員出庭接受盤問的可能性，但認(rèn)為賣方仲裁員在有了買方仲裁員撐腰的情況下，是不會(huì)去承認(rèn)他說過這句中方聽得十分清楚的話。換言之，懷疑賣方把一批舊貨當(dāng)新貨賣給中國買方。這可去節(jié)錄Cleasby男爵在Duke of Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Board of Works (Buccleuch) (187172) . 418先例中的說法如下：“Being petent generally, it follows that he may be questioned as to what took place before him, so as to shew (show) over what subjectmatter he was exercising jurisdiction. He might, therefore, prove that a claim was made for pensation in respect of one matter, A., and also in respect of another matter, B., and that both were entertained without objection。這一個(gè)先例在接下去的幾個(gè)案例也是有同樣的判法。而由于仲裁員不去應(yīng)訊出庭，他就不應(yīng)該產(chǎn)生任何律師費(fèi)用。這是Sir Anthony Colman等所著的《The Practice and Procedure of The Commercial Court》2008年第六版有關(guān)1996年《英國仲裁法》下把通知仲裁員去區(qū)分為2種情況。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。但Donaldson大法官對(duì)這種做法好像不太認(rèn)同，原因也可以估計(jì)到，就是非正式通知的話會(huì)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(huì)先要向法院申請(qǐng)批準(zhǔn)他去參與作為第二被告，這樣才有機(jī)會(huì)出庭作出抗辯。 仲裁員在受到攻擊時(shí)是否會(huì)出庭抗辯的常理分析顯然，對(duì)方當(dāng)事人作為主要的被告，去把申請(qǐng)表送達(dá)給他是完全有必要與恰當(dāng)，因?yàn)樗@然是不認(rèn)同原告的做法。（He could not be trusted to plete the arbitration fairly and properly even with the examination of his conduct by the parties and their representatives and guidance from the court.:H. H. Judge Bowsher . in Groundshire v VHE Constrction [2001] . 395）。事實(shí)上也很少有文章針對(duì)這一方面的問題，好像是仲裁員受到一方當(dāng)事人的攻擊去法院尋求救濟(jì)可以去怎樣應(yīng)對(duì)。 當(dāng)事人在什么情形下去法院尋求趕走/挑戰(zhàn)仲裁員 在仲裁程序中途其實(shí)這個(gè)問題的危險(xiǎn)性一直都有甚至很高，首先會(huì)出現(xiàn)在如果當(dāng)事人在仲裁程序中途對(duì)個(gè)別或者全體仲裁員不滿意的情況，所以去英國法院根據(jù)1996年《英國仲裁法》之Section 24申請(qǐng)趕走該個(gè)別或者全部的仲裁員，進(jìn)而重新委任其他仲裁員。針對(duì)原告申請(qǐng)去把他趕走，該仲裁員還會(huì)是比較關(guān)心。估計(jì)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?yàn)橐e極參與法院程序會(huì)要委任昂貴的代表律師與要占用仲裁員的時(shí)間，但畢竟還是有可能去這樣做，請(qǐng)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。有關(guān)這一個(gè)訴訟費(fèi)用的問題，根據(jù)這一個(gè)先例，Mustill amp。如果他不這樣做就會(huì)失去抗辯的機(jī)會(huì)。 仲裁員可否被傳召為證人？這里第一個(gè)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。很多事實(shí)證人也會(huì)涉及了享有特權(quán)的證據(jù)可以拒絕提供或回應(yīng)盤問，但針對(duì)仲裁員作為證人就好像不大會(huì)涉及這一方面。 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….”。由于只是討論程序上的問題，所以在該預(yù)先會(huì)議上并沒有安排現(xiàn)場的錄音以及開庭記錄。畢竟，在很多這種申請(qǐng)中，仲裁員會(huì)提供給法院宣誓書或證人證言解釋有關(guān)的事實(shí)。但申請(qǐng)人/原告代表律師表示反對(duì)，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。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(guān)的記憶。但這里最大的考慮就是證據(jù)十分有問題，估計(jì)成功機(jī)會(huì)很低。案情是該批貨物在到達(dá)