判決書解釋，懇請幫忙！！

ENG:
I am further enforced in this view by the general principle that the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration should be less rather than more. The power to intervene is defined by statute and a non-interventionist philosophy is encouraged in issues concerning when such a power arises.

This not being an award, there is no power to set it aside.

The remaining issue, therefore, is whether Gingerbread has been able to demonstrate that the arbitrator misconducted himself when finding that Cheung Kong and Citybase were acting as agents for Gingerbread.

Misconduct
In Asia Construction v. Crown Pacific (1988) 44 BLR 135 a test to be applied for the removal of an arbitrator was formulated as follows :
“Do there exist grounds from which a reasonable person would think there was a real likelihood that the arbitrator could not, or, would not, fairly determine the issue in question on the evidence or arguments to be adduced before him?”


中文:

我進一步強制執行這一觀點的一般原則，即法院和仲裁的監督管轄權應少而不是更多。干預的權力是由法律規定和不干預的理念是鼓勵有關當這樣的電源出現問題。這不是一個獎項，有沒有權力放在一邊。剩下的問題，因此，這是薑餅是否已經能夠證明發現，長江實業及港基分別充當薑餅代理時，仲裁員行為不當。 。不端行為在亞洲建設V太平洋皇冠（1988）44 BLR 135測試，以應用於去除仲裁員的配製如下：“你存在的理由從一個合理的人會認為這是一個真正的可能性，仲裁員不能，或不會，在公平的證據或論據的問題確定問題在他面前被援引的？“

HOPE I CAN HELP YOU ^_^

In Asia Construction v. Crown Pacific (1988)
在亞洲建設五冠太平洋 (1988 年) ~ 回答者001
亞洲建設V太平洋皇冠（1988）~ 回答者 003

兩位回答者這樣翻譯, 有無攪錯

v = versus (對)
Crown Worldwide Group (嘉柏環球有限公司 ) 前身名稱 Crown Pacific
Asian Construction = 亞洲建築公司

2014-12-31 07:17:33 補充：
請回答者001, 003 重讀原文
發問者：shui 要求解釋, 不是翻譯
Google Translate 發問者可自己做, 不用麻煩他人

回答者002 雖然用英文, 但是用心機去答
It is commendable

回答結果在投票中, 我看見, 不知道 Who is who
得罪了

The following is my interpretation of the Verdict Statement, in plain English:

My view is supported by the general principal that the court's power over arbitration should be as little as possible. The power to intervene is defined by statute and non-interventionist philosophy is encouraged in exercising such power.

While one can decide whether to grant an award, the court does not have a similar power to withhold an arbitrator's decision.

Regarding the arbitrator's decision that Cheung Kong and Citybase were acting as agents for Gingerbread rather than for themselves, the issue for the court is to determine if Gingerbread has been able to demonstrate that the arbitrator misconducted himself in arriving at that decision.

Misconduct
In Asia Construction v. Crown Pacific (1988) 44 BLR 135, the criteria for a decision to remove the arbitrator were as follows :
“Is there any ground that a reasonable person would think that the arbitrator could not, or, would not, fairly determine the issue in question according to the evidence or arguments presented to him?”

不是直譯是簡單意譯。
法庭應少干預仲裁判決，判決沒人受益，所以沒有可推翻的。
法庭只要考慮裁判員可有行為失當，著眼點是一個正常人看了證據會不會懷疑。

英文
I am further enforced in this view by the general principle that the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration should be less rather than more. The power to intervene is defined by statute and a non-interventionist philosophy is encouraged in issues concerning when such a power arises.

This not being an award, there is no power to set it aside.

The remaining issue, therefore, is whether Gingerbread has been able to demonstrate that the arbitrator misconducted himself when finding that Cheung Kong and Citybase were acting as agents for Gingerbread.

Misconduct
In Asia Construction v. Crown Pacific (1988) 44 BLR 135 a test to be applied for the removal of an arbitrator was formulated as follows :
“Do there exist grounds from which a reasonable person would think there was a real likelihood that the arbitrator could not, or, would not, fairly determine the issue in question on the evidence or arguments to be adduced before him?”
翻譯為中文
法院的監督對仲裁管轄權應該是較少而不是更多的一般原則，我們進一步要在此視圖中遵守。進行干預的權力由規約 》 和非干涉主義哲學鼓勵在問題時產生了這種權力。


這不是獎勵，沒有力量，放在一邊。


餘下的問題，因此，是姜餅是否已經能夠證明仲裁員女色時發現長江實業和港基被作為代理人姜餅。


不當行為
在亞洲建設五冠太平洋 (1988 年)、 44 厘 135 測試用於一名仲裁員去除措詞，如下所示：
"那裡存在從中一個通情達理的人會以為那裡是真正的可能性，該仲裁員不能或不會的相當確定所涉問題有關的證據或論據，在他面前援引的理由嗎?"