香港法院在侵权诉求不受仲裁协议影响的情形下颁发禁令

在CastlemilInfant (HK) Supplies Co Ltd诉Care N Love Development Ltd （[2018] HKDC 1419）一案中，香港区域法院在认定原告的侵权诉求不属于双方当事人仲裁协议范围的情形下，决定颁发强制性禁令。

背 景

根据双方的营销和销售代理协议，被告此前为原告的营销顾问或销售代理人。被告为原告设立了一个Facebook账户，作为供原告客户和潜在客户访问其业务信息，以及进行促销和销售活动的唯一平台，这个账户变得至关重要。当双方合作关系破裂时，原告向被告发出终止通知。被告要求以20万港元换回该Facebook账户，后又将这笔款项减至5万港元。原告随后向法院申请禁令，要求被告交出Facebook账户。本案被告未出席禁令听证会，也未出庭。

裁 定

香港区域法院的MK Liu法官颁发了该项禁令，并认为原告在本诉讼中将获得胜诉，理由如下：

•  由于终止通知的发出，协议于9月底终止；

•  原告是Facebook帐户的所有权人，在2018年9月后，被告拒绝原告访问该Facebook帐户，并在未经其同意的情况下删除了部分内容。法院认为，被告的行为可能构成侵占和非法干涉的侵权行为；及

•  仲裁协议约定的范围是“由协议引起或与其有关的任何分歧、争议或索赔”，并不影响原告提起侵权诉讼。

 法院颁发了禁令并要求被告在禁令送达后24小时内披露账户密码。

讨 论

最后，无论原告的诉讼请求是否在仲裁协议范围内（如在其范围内，依据《香港仲裁条例》（香港法律第609章）第20条，就仲裁协议的标的向法院提起诉讼时，由于双方当事人就争议实体提出第一次申述时均未要求仲裁，故法院有权继续审理此案；如不在其范围内，法院也可行使其固有管辖权），香港法院都有权颁发此项禁令。然而，我们仍期待能对仲裁协议的范围进行充分解释。但本案中的法官却未对仲裁协议不影响侵权索赔的原因进行说明，也未参照Fiona Trust＆Holding Corporation诉Privalov （[2007] UKHL 40）等案中对仲裁协议的措辞进行详细分析的先例。而是基于商事争议当事人通常都希望在一个法院解决其所有争议，本案主张对仲裁协议进行宽泛解释。

【英文原文】

Hong Kong Court grants injunction, holds tortious claim unaffected by arbitration agreement

In Castlemil Infant (HK) Supplies Co Ltd v Care N Love Development Ltd [2018] HKDC 1419, the Hong Kong District Court granted a mandatory injunction, having found that the plaintiff’s underlying tort claims did not fall within the scope of the parties’arbitration agreement.

Background

The defendant was engaged as the plaintiff’s marketing consultant or sales agent under a Marketing & Sales Agency Agreement. The defendant set up a Facebook account for the plaintiff which became of central importance, being the only platform where clients and potential clients could access information about events, promotions and sales of the plaintiff’s business. When their relationship broke down, the plaintiff served a termination notice on the defendant. The defendant requested HK$200,000 in return for the Facebook account, later reducing this amount to HK$50,000. The plaintiff then applied to the court for an injunction directing the defendant hand over the Facebook account. The defendant was not represented at the injunction hearing and did not appear.

Decision

Judge MK Liu of the Hong Kong District Court granted the injunction, being satisfied that the plaintiff may succeed in a claim against the defendant in the proceedings because:

§ the Agreement came to an end in late September as a result of the termination notice;

§ the plaintiff was the owner of the Facebook accountand, after September 2018, the defendant refused the plaintiff access to the Facebook account and deleted contents without consent. In the court’s view, this could amount to the torts of conversion and wrongful interference; and

§ the arbitration agreement which referred “any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of orrelating to [the] Agreement” to arbitration did not affect the plaintiff’s claim in tort.

The court granted the injunction and directed the defendant to disclose the password within 24 hours after the service of the injunction order.

Discussion

Ultimately,the Hong Kong court had power to grant this injunction whether the plaintiff’s claim fell within the arbitration agreement (in which case the court’s power would be derived from s.20 Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) or not (in which case it was an exercise of its inherent jurisdiction). However, we might have expected a fuller discussion of the scope of the arbitration clause. The judge did not explain why this arbitration agreement did not affect a tortious claim, nor engage in a close analysis of its wording with reference to cases such as Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40. That case advocates a broad interpretation of arbitration clauses, on the basis that commercial parties generally intend all their disputes to be determined in a single forum.

By Simon Chapman

                                                                                                            来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA