您的位置 :航运界 > 航运专栏 > 正文

专访伦敦海事律所Jackson Parton合伙人Nick Parton

发布时间:2014-07-04 10:46:51  来源:航运界     专家:Joanne伦敦漫谈 访问个人主页
 
This is the text of an interview with Nick Parton of the London maritime law firm, Jackson Parton. The interview was arranged for ship.sh by FOBNetworking.com, the international networking platform for shipping professionals.
本文是对伦敦海事律所Jackson Parton的合伙人Nick Parton的采访。由国际航运网络社交平台FOB Networking.com安排。
1. Ship.sh: It always used to be said that arbitration in London was fairer, faster and provided better value for money than litigation. Is that still the case today? When should parties arbitrate rather than litigate?
航运界:过去人们一直说,相比起诉,在伦敦仲裁比法庭诉讼更加公平、快捷、性价比高。目前是否仍是这样?什么时候应该选择仲裁而不是诉讼?
 
Nick Parton: I have to say that today London arbitration is just as expensive as litigation. That is not how it always was. In the old days, arbitration was conducted without lawyers. The parties chose a shipping professional as arbitrator. The two parties put forward their case and then the arbitrator made the final decision. It was quick and inexpensive. I can still remember arbitration being like that. Today, unlike in the past, arbitrations require meticulous attention to detail and this can have an important effect on the final outcome. 
Nick Parton: 不得不说,今天在伦敦仲裁跟起诉一样昂贵。但以前并非如此,以往仲裁中,不需要律师参与,仲裁双方选择一个航运专家作为仲裁员,各方上前陈述案情,然后仲裁员作出最终裁决。迅速又经济。我仍然记得当初那样的仲裁。今天,与以往不同了,仲裁中会关注到细致入微的细节,且这样的细节对最终的裁决起到很大的作用。
 
Therefore, London arbitration can take as much time as litigation, and will be more costly than litigation, unless it is on documents alone – this can be significantly quicker and somewhat cheaper. A company should arbitrate if they want to keep the details private, otherwise it is probably better to litigate. With arbitration, there are three main distinguishing features: one is the cost of the arbitrators, the second is the juggling of the diaries of the various parties to arrange the hearing, and the third is the fact that a High Court judge is free whereas you have to pay the arbitrator. Arbitrators appointed by lawyers tend to be more generous to lawyers when it comes to awarding costs than a High Court judge would be. Arbitrators will also award compound interest on the amount in dispute, while High Court judges award simple interest, so if you win an arbitration, you may recover more than if you litigate, depending on the length of time involved. That is one point in favour of arbitration as opposed to litigation.
因此,伦敦仲裁可能耗费与诉讼同样的时间,同时会比诉讼花费更多的金钱,除非是文件仲裁的方式—这样就快很多同时稍微便宜一些。公司如果想维持保密性的话应该选择仲裁,否则很可能诉讼更好。仲裁与诉讼相比有着三大主要区别:一是仲裁员的费用,二是需要协调参与听证的多方人士的日程,三是高等法院法官是免费的,但你却需要支付仲裁员。在签署核准律师费时,由律师委托的仲裁员相比较高等法院法官会更加慷慨。同时,在最终给付的争议金额的利息上,仲裁员会判决给予的利息是复利,而高等法院法官只能判决给予单利,所以如果你赢得仲裁,你最终获得的争议金额可能比诉讼要多。这是仲裁相对于诉讼更有优势的一点。
 
2. Ship.sh: Why choose London? What about New York, Singapore and Paris?
航运界:为什么选择伦敦?不选择纽约、新加坡和巴黎等其它地方?
 
Nick Parton: At the moment, London massively dominates international arbitration.  
Nick Parton:目前,伦敦在国际仲裁上有着绝对的主导性的地位。
 
I remember some years ago I was asked to give a talk about London arbitration compared to New York and Paris. The statistics at that time showed that there were about 4,400 arbitrations in London that year, while there were about 111 in New York and about 105 in Paris. I believe that the number of cases heard in New York has actually reduced in recent years.  Singapore is obviously convenient for parties from Asia. 
我记得几年前别人邀请我来讲讲伦敦仲裁与纽约仲裁、巴黎仲裁的比较。那时的数据显示,那一年伦敦仲裁了4,400件案件,而同期纽约和巴黎分别仲裁了111件和105件。我相信最近几年在纽约仲裁的案件实际上更少了。而新加坡显然对于亚洲的仲裁双方来说更加便利。
 
In terms of fees, London arbitration is purely decided by the time spent by the arbitrators who charge an hourly rate. In Singapore, fees are based on the amount in dispute. 
至于费用问题,伦敦仲裁单纯由仲裁员花费的时间决定,按小时收费。在新加坡,仲裁费用基于争议涉及的总金额。
 
It must also be remembered that London has got a very good infrastructure in terms of access to experts and many very able lawyers. There are a lot of maritime law firms competing ferociously in London, whereas there are not as many maritime law firms in other places. You can also have a LMAA arbitrator sitting in Singapore, but it will be more expensive. 
当然我们一定要记住,伦敦有非常好的体系架构,比如这里有好的专家和许多非常出色的律师。在伦敦有着大量的海事律所,相互拼杀式的竞争,然而其它地方就没有这么多的律所。当然你可以在新加坡仲裁时找一个伦敦海事仲裁员协会(LMAA)仲裁员来仲裁,但这比在伦敦还贵。
 
3. Ship.sh: What about the quality of London arbitrators? Is the LMAA a "closed shop”?
航运界:伦敦仲裁员的水平如何?成为LMAA的会员是不是非常困难?
 
Nick Parton: It is very difficult to become a member of the LMAA these days. You have to have published awards and to have a track record as an arbitrator, before you can be considered to be a member of LMAA. It is the existing members who decide, and they frequently refuse people.
Nick Parton: 现如今要向成为LMAA的成员是非常困难的。你需要有判决被出版,还需要有一些作为仲裁员的出色表现,才能有资格被考虑成为LMAA的成员。最终是否入会是由现有成员决定的,但他们经常拒绝新成员入会。
 
Sometimes I appoint junior barristers or QCs  as arbitrators rather than members of the LMAA, when I want a very high powered lawyer as arbitrator, who is distant from the parties involved and cannot possibly be influenced. As arbitrator, the barrister is prepared to accept a rate of GBP 350/hour, when they can command a much higher rate as barristers. For example, a QC may charge around GBP 800/hour. This is partly because of kudos attached to being an arbitrator, and partly because some barristers like to wind down their practice towards the end of their careers. 
有时我委托出庭律师或者皇家律师作为仲裁员,而不是LMAA仲裁员作为仲裁员,比如有时我希望找一个地位很崇高的律师来做仲裁,因为这样的人选和仲裁双方都很陌生,所以不可能会被其它因素干扰影响。作为仲裁员的出庭律师的收费标准为350英镑/小时,而以他们在法庭上作为出庭律师的话能拿到比这多很多的报酬。例如皇家律师每小时大概收费800英镑左右。这部分是由于当仲裁员的荣誉,部分是因为一些出庭律师在职业生涯末期想要从紧张的工作中逐渐放缓脚步。
 
4. Ship.sh: London arbitration awards are not published. Should they be, as in NY?
航运界:伦敦的仲裁的判决是不公布出版的,是否应该像纽约一样将判决出版?
 
Nick Parton: London arbitration awards are private. No one knows the detail apart from the parties themselves. That is one attraction of arbitration in that the parties can resolve their disputes without anyone else even knowing they are in dispute. In New York and Paris, arbitration awards are published. London arbitration awards may be published anonymously in certain circumstances in the LMAA newsletter, without the names of the parties and their lawyers, if all the parties agree.
Nick Parton:伦敦仲裁判决是保密的。除了仲裁双方,没人知道具体情况。这正是伦敦仲裁的一大吸引力,仲裁双方甚至可以在别人完全不知道他们去仲裁的情况下,将仲裁完成。纽约和巴黎会出版仲裁的判决。如果征得仲裁双方的同意,伦敦仲裁判决在某些特定情况下可能在LMAA的新闻简报里匿名出版,也就是说不公布仲裁双方的身份以及律师的名字。
 
In my view, the majority of people in London prefer to keep awards private. I think New York might have made a fundamental error in publishing. People prefer the anonymity.
在我看来,大多数在伦敦仲裁的人更愿意维持判决的保密。我认为纽约出版判决是个根本性的错误。人们偏爱隐匿性。
 
5. Ship.sh: Can a party appeal to the Court if they lose at arbitration?
航运界:如果一方在仲裁中失败,是否可以上诉法院?
 
Nick Parton: It is section 69 of the 1996 Arbitration Act that applies today. It is very difficult to get the permission to appeal to the Court. In 99% of arbitration cases the arbitration award is the final judgement. According to Section 68 of the Act, the Court may allow an appeal in certain instances on procedural grounds, for example, if the arbitrator has been guilty of misconduct. But under the current case law, that is only to be used in very extreme circumstances, so it is much the solution of  last resort. So if you do not allege something really serious, an attempted appeal based on section 68 will be a waste of time and money.
Nick Parton:目前的伦敦仲裁适用于英国1996年仲裁法第69节。获得上诉法院的批准是非常难的,99%的案件中仲裁判决都是最终裁决。根据上述法律第68节的规定,有程序法根据的上诉会在一定的情况下得到法院的批准,例如,你控告仲裁员存在不端行为。但按照目前的判例法法系,这只是在非常极端的情形下,所以这基本上相当于最后的不得已的解决方案。所以你不是宣称什么特别严重的事情,基于68节的规定,申请上诉将是浪费时间和金钱。
 
A case of fraud can now be heard an arbitrator. It can instead go to Court. In an arbitration, if one party alleges fraud that issue could be dealt with in Court. Here, the arbitrators decide whether they are going to hear the fraud issue or not. 
目前诈骗案件可以交由仲裁员仲裁,或者也可以提交法院。在仲裁中,如果一方宣称存在诈骗行为,那么争议有可能由法庭处理。这时,是仲裁员来决定是继续听证这个案子还是递交给法庭。
 
6. Ship.sh: There is a perception in China that Chinese shipyards and shipping company are likely to lose their cases if they are arbitrated in London. Is this perception justified?
航运界:在中国有一种看法,中国船厂和航运公司如果在伦敦仲裁更有可能输,这种看法是否正确?
 
Nick Parton: Arbitration is in some ways a unique concept in that you are actually paying someone to decide whether you are right or the other party is right. It might sound like an astonishing proposition if you think about it, because in Court the judge is paid by the state, and has no possible interest in the outcome of the case other than to hear the evidence and to give a judgement. Inevitably, if you choose arbitration, then you may have a personal relationship with the arbitrator or your lawyer may do. If  you pay someone to arbitrate, it is very easy to get the impression that there must be  some improper conduct going on. When a party loses an arbitration and sometimes even a High Court case, they may allege that the arbitrator or the judge is stupid or biased. Of course, people just do not like losing. 
Nick Parton: 仲裁在某些方面来说是个独一无二的概念,你实际上是付钱给一个人让他来判断是你对还是另一方对。如果你仔细想想看,这听起来也许是一个很惊人的主意,因为法院的法官的费用由国家支付,法官除了听取证据和做出裁决,他们跟案件的结果并没有可能的利益关系。如果选择仲裁,不可避免的,你自己或者你的律师可能跟仲裁员有私人关系。同时你付钱让人来仲裁,这就很容易令人产生“这里面一定有着不良勾当”的印象。当一方仲裁败诉,甚至在高等法院败诉,他们可能声称仲裁员或法官愚蠢和偏向另一方。这时可以理解的,谁都不喜欢输。
 
I can well understand that the Chinese shipyards who have lost at arbitration might think that all arbitrators are biased against Chinese yards.  
我可以理解输掉仲裁的中国船厂或许认为这些仲裁员都对在仲裁中偏向另一方。
 
In fact, London maritime arbitrators can be quite suspicious of shipowners, particularly if they think that trickery or fraudulent conduct is involved. For example, there have been cases reported in the Lloyd’s Law Reports about some ship owners setting fire to their ships in order to claim the insurance proceeds. Some owners seem to believe that it is a legitimate way to make money given all the insurance premiums they pay.
实际上伦敦海事仲裁员,特别是当他们认为案件涉及不良计谋或诈骗时,对船东是抱有十分怀疑的态度的。例如,在《劳氏法律报告》里就有这样的案例,一些船东为了获得保险赔付,不惜对船舶纵火。一些船东似乎认为,基于他们支付的所有保费,这是一种合法的赚钱方式。
 
There are some companies which are very familiar with English law and London arbitration, and very experienced in using it to their advantage. Some believe that they know how to use their lawyers and experts. They tell their lawyers what they think they ought to know and do not tell them what they do not want them to know. They will not contemplate any other law or place of arbitration in their contracts because they know the system.
还有一些公司对于英国法律和伦敦仲裁非常熟稔,并对利用这些使自身获利有着非常多的经验。一些人相信他们知道怎样利用他们的律师和专家。他们告诉律师那些他们认为律师应当知道的,而不告诉律师那些他们认为律师不该知道的。他们在合同上不会考虑任何其它法律和仲裁地,因为他们了解英国这个体系。
 
I remember a shipbuilding dispute where a Greek company wanted to get out of a contract with a Chinese shipyard. Many millions of US dollars were at stake. In order to win a case like that, the Chinese shipyard must make its important witnesses available to the lawyer and experts for as long as is necessary, going through all the details of the case. This is of course very time-consuming, but this preparation is essential for the outcome of the case.  
我记得一个造船争议,希腊公司想终止与中国船厂的造船合同,涉及的数额是千万美元级的。为赢得这样的案件,必要时,中国船厂就必须能提供重要的证人,让其律师和专家能够与这些证人梳理整个案件的细节。这样的流程非常耗费时间,但这样的准备对于案件的结果有着本质性的影响。
 
I have seen Chinese interests win in London arbitration proceedings, although arbitration awards themselves are private.
尽管伦敦仲裁的判决是保密的,但我还是在伦敦仲裁过程中见到过中国利益方在伦敦赢得仲裁。
 
I cannot stress enough the importance of preparation in order to succeed in London arbitration proceedings. London arbitrators will study the facts of the case in great detail, just as the Courts will do. In my judgement, preparation for arbitration and litigation is of the utmost importance, but there is no bias against Chinese interests.  
为赢得伦敦仲裁,我再怎么强调完善准备的重要性也不过分。伦敦仲裁员将会细致入微的研究案件的事实,就像法院做的那样。我的判断是,对于仲裁和诉讼案件的准备是至为重要的,而并不存在损害中国企业的利益的偏见。
 
 
0
 
社区登录
社区热点 更多>>
迷你博客 查看更多>>
王清三无阶级~加油!(回复)
陈国卿船舶保险条款 PICC86 & PICC96的比较 分类:船壳保(回复)
钟晓乐方舟子戳破几个常识性的谎言,就被满网抄斩,逼得逃往平时他(回复)
钟晓乐看了渣浪的所谓的对话直播,只播出官员们的说话,学生的话,连(回复)
钟晓乐拳王阿里,除了是体育人物,还是宗教人物和政治人物.在拒绝接(回复)
第一天来,冒个头(回复)
第一天来,冒个头(回复)
爱船网-航运信息港(www.aiship.cn)加微信有惊喜哦 微信号(回复)
钟晓乐刚看完了 How to Train Your Dragon 2,大概是一个讲一个邪(回复)
周建芳(回复)
周建芳感觉到了一丝丝凉意!(回复)
朱胤峰我司专业日本航线十年,欢迎同行询价、合作。 我司优势有很(回复)
武嘉璐现在CI已经没有了么?竟然消失了(回复)