【编者按】
香港作为全球知名国际仲裁地，法院对于仲裁案件的司法审查标准，数十年间持续发展演进，相关判例是涉外争议解决实务不可或缺的参考资料。本专栏汇集一千余件香港仲裁相关法院判决，逐案深度分析，提供中英双语文本，辅以案件要点梳理、裁判逻辑深度解析为从事跨境争议解决、涉外仲裁实务的法律从业者，提供体系化、可溯源的香港仲裁司法参考资料库。今日案例分享：[2026] HKCFI 2948判决，聚焦仲裁保密义务与第三方证据开示边界问题。
[2026] HKCFI 2948
国家石化工业公司诉ERM香港有限公司案
National Petrochemical Industrial Company v ERM-Hong Kong,Limited
【基本案情】
原告（国家石化工业公司）在沙特阿拉伯经营一家聚丙烯工厂，委托Tecnimont实体设计建造，被告（ERM香港有限公司）受Tecnimont分包，提供危险与可操作性研究（Hazop）服务。工厂发生爆炸后，原告在香港法院对被告提起疏忽诉讼，并另行对Tecnimont实体提起国际商会（ICC）仲裁。ICC仲裁庭裁决驳回原告全部请求后，被告为抗辩法院诉讼，向法庭申请特定披露，要求获取Tecnimont仲裁的全部材料。
The Plaintiff, National Petrochemical Industrial Company, operated a polypropylene plant in Saudi Arabia and engaged the Tecnimont Entities to design and build it. The Defendant, ERM-Hong Kong, Limited, was subcontracted by Tecnimont to provide HAZOP study services. Following an explosion at the plant in 2018, the Plaintiff commenced a court action in Hong Kong against the Defendant in negligence, and separately commenced an ICC arbitration against the Tecnimont Entities.The ICC tribunal issued an award in 2024 rejecting the Plaintiff's claims in their entirety. The Defendant subsequently applied for specific discovery of the entire suite of materials from the Tecnimont Arbitration, including pleadings, evidence, and the final award, to assist in its defence of the court action.
【核心法律争议】
1.第三方Tecnimont在仲裁程序中产生的文件是否对公正裁决本案或节约诉讼成本具有相关性与必要性。
Whether the documents generated in the third-party Tecnimont Arbitration were relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the court action or for saving costs.
2.仲裁裁决书中的认定与结论是否根据Hollington v Hewthorn案的规则而属不可采。
Whether the findings and conclusions in the arbitral award were inadmissible under the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn.
3.仲裁保密原则所蕴含的义务是否排除了法院要求向仲裁程序非当事人披露仲裁材料的权利。
Whether the implied obligation of arbitral confidentiality precluded the court from ordering disclosure of the arbitration materials to a non-party to the arbitration.
4.被告提出的特定证据开示申请是否构成不被允许的“钓鱼式取证”行为。
Whether the Defendant's application for specific discovery constituted an impermissible fishing expedition
【相关法律原则】
1.根据 RHC O.24 r.7的规定，只有在文件与案件相关且披露对于公正处理案件或节约成本是必要的情况下，法院才会命令进行证据开示。
Specific discovery under RHC O.24 r.7 will only be ordered if the documents are relevant and disclosure is necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or for saving costs.
2.根据Hollington v Hewthorn案中的规则，其他法院或仲裁机构在独立诉讼中作出的事实认定和结论不得作为所认定事实的证据，尽管基础证据或文件本身并未被排除。
Under the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn, factual findings and conclusions of another court or tribunal in separate proceedings are inadmissible as evidence of the facts so found, although the underlying evidence or documents themselves are not excluded.
3.为仲裁而准备并用于仲裁的文件受隐含保密义务约束，法院仅会在独立诉讼中命令披露这些文件，若该披露对于公正处理该诉讼或维护司法公正而言确属严格必要。
Documents prepared for and used in an arbitration are subject to an implied obligation of confidentiality, and the court will only order their disclosure in separate proceedings if it is strictly necessary for the fair disposal of those proceedings or in the interests of justice.
4.无论请求披露的是仲裁当事方还是非仲裁当事方，均适用相同的仲裁保密原则。
The same principles of arbitral confidentiality apply whether disclosure is sought by a party to the arbitration or by a non-party to the arbitration.
5.不得为了“钓鱼”目的而命令进行证据开示，即在没有事先证据依据的情况下，通过搜索材料以期发现不一致立场或检验专家证言的一致性。
Discovery will not be ordered for the purpose of 'fishing' to search for materials in the hope of finding inconsistent positions or checking the consistency of expert evidence without a prior evidential basis.
【法院裁判要旨】
法院驳回被告提出的特定文件披露申请。法院认定：被告未能证明泰克尼蒙特仲裁材料具有关联性；依据霍林顿诉休索恩案规则，仲裁庭作出的事实认定不具备可采性；且披露相关文件并非公正审理本案所必需，不足以突破仲裁程序项下的默示保密义务。
The Court dismissed the Defendant's summons for specific discovery. It held that the Defendant failed to establish the relevance of the Tecnimont Arbitration Materials, that the arbitral findings were inadmissible under the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn, and that disclosure was not necessary to fairly dispose of the action so as to override the implied obligation of arbitral confidentiality.
【拓展链接】
一、RHC O.24 r.7
1.文件名：Rules of the High Court《高等法院规则》第 24 号命令第 7 条— 文件披露及文件查阅。
2.中文译文：
（1）在不抵觸第 8 條的規定下，法庭可於訟案或事宜的任何階段，應任何一方申請，作出命令，規定另一方提交誓章，述明申請書指明或描述的文件或某類文件，現時是否或曾否由其管有、保管或控制；如現時不再持有，須述明何時不再持有以及文件下落。
（2）即使該方已按照第 2 條、第 3 條提交或被命令提交文件清單，法庭仍可根據本條向其作出命令。
（3）依本條提出申請，必須附有支持誓章；誓章須述明立誓人有理由相信：被要求披露的一方現時或曾經持有申請所列文件，且文件與案件爭議事宜相關。
二、the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn
1.Hollington v.F.Hewthom&Co.Ltd(1943)
2.Facts：原告的儿子因交通事故身故，向被告提起民事索赔，在举证证明被告存在疏忽问题，向法庭提交了两份证据，其中一份证据是被告在本案中以疏忽驾驶罪被刑事处罚的记录，但上诉庭仍以刑事案件的审查重点和民事案件的审查重点不完全相同为由，驳回原告的全部诉讼请求。后该先例确定了在先前的司法裁决中作出的裁断，如果不构成禁止反言/一事不再理，在随后的案件中是不得接纳的。
3.英国于1968年通过了1968年《民事证据法案》规定："In any civil proceedings the fact that a person has been convicted of an offence by or before any court in the United Kingdom or of a service offence (anywhere) shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving, where to do so is relevant to any issue in those proceedings, that he committed that offence."即在任何民事诉讼中，任何人被英国任何法院判决有罪，在与之相关的任何诉讼有关的情况下，均可接纳为证据，以证明其犯有该罪行。
4.但是由于Hollington先例未被贵族院或最高院推翻，即在部分条件下仍会被继续适用。不同审理者基于同一组证据得出的结论和意见可能有所不同，因为审理者有着不同的职业素养和专业水平，极有可能针对同一组证据根据证据优势原则得出截然不同的两个结论。
