Matter note: interim measures from Mainland courts

An asset-rich counterparty on the Mainland and an arbitration seated in Hong Kong: this combination is more common in our cross-border practice than any other. The strategic question it raises is not which law governs the contract. It is whether, in the time it takes a tribunal to constitute and deliberate, the counterparty's assets remain available to satisfy an award. Interim measures from Mainland courts are the mechanism that answers that question – and the sequence of steps is precise.

Under the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-Ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong SAR – in effect since 1 October 2019 – a party to a Hong Kong-seated arbitration may apply directly to a Mainland people's court for property preservation, evidence preservation or conduct preservation before or after the arbitration is commenced. The arbitration must be administered by an institution designated under the Arrangement; the HKIAC is among the designated bodies. The application routes through the seat, not through any recognition step, which is what makes it structurally different from the enforcement regime that follows an award.

This matter note sets out an anonymised cross-border position we worked through, the choices we made, and the lesson that transfers to similar mandates.

What was the situation and why did the standard route fall short?

A mid-sized trading group incorporated in a common-law offshore centre – with its primary operating subsidiaries and most of its receivables in the Mainland – had a commercial dispute with a Mainland counterparty over a long-term supply arrangement. The contract contained an HKIAC arbitration clause, Hong Kong seat, and a governing law clause pointing to the law of Hong Kong. On paper, the position was well-drafted.

The difficulty was timing. By the time the group's principal recognised that the counterparty was moving assets – restructuring its Mainland receivables and pledging warehouse inventory to a connected affiliate – the dispute had not yet been formally commenced. An award, even an expedited one, was months away. Property preservation under the Mainland's civil procedure rules, applied for through a Mainland court without the benefit of the Arrangement, would have required a Mainland-law action, a Mainland claimant in standing, and a cash security deposit calculated against the full amount being preserved. None of those conditions were met.

The question we faced was whether the HKIAC route could be activated quickly enough, and whether the interim-measures mechanism could freeze the right assets before the window closed.

What was the cross-border legal interface that governed the strategy?

Two systems sit in parallel here. Hong Kong operates under a common-law arbitration regime grounded in the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609), which is modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law. Mainland China operates under a civil procedure regime with its own preservation rules and its own court hierarchy. Before the Arrangement, those two systems had no direct procedural bridge for pre-award interim relief. A party with a Hong Kong award but unpreserved Mainland assets would arrive at the enforcement stage to find a diminished recovery pool.

The Arrangement created that bridge. It applies to arbitrations administered by a designated institution – meaning the institution, not just the clause, must qualify. It does not apply to ad hoc arbitrations. The HKIAC qualifies. The application for interim measures goes to the Intermediate People's Court in the place where the respondent is domiciled, where the assets are situated, or where the evidence is located. The applicant files through the arbitral institution, which transmits to the relevant Mainland court. The court applies Mainland preservation standards: the applicant must establish a prima facie case, a risk of damage if the measures are not granted, and provide security if required.

Understanding both sides of that interface is not optional. Foreign counsel who know only the HKIAC Rules, or only the Mainland civil procedure rules, will misread the application requirements.

How did the sequence run, and where was the turning point?

The first decision was to commence the HKIAC arbitration promptly and in parallel with preparing the preservation application. Under the Arrangement, an application may be made before arbitration is formally commenced, but the arbitration must be commenced within a defined period after the interim-measures application is accepted. Delay in filing risks the court declining to process the preservation application. We advised commencing the HKIAC case on the same day the preservation application was lodged.

The application materials prepared for the Mainland court included: a certified copy of the arbitration agreement (translated); evidence of the claimant's prima facie claim; a description of the specific assets proposed for preservation (identified by reference to corporate registration data, known bank account jurisdictions, and warehouse locations); a risk narrative explaining why the assets were at immediate risk; and the security arrangement. The institution transmitted the file to the designated Mainland court.

The turning point was the asset identification step. Property preservation under Mainland procedure attaches to specific identified assets. A broad application for "all assets of the respondent" will not succeed in the form that an English-law freezing injunction might take. The application must name accounts, property or receivables with sufficient particularity. In this matter, we worked with the group's internal team to compile a Mainland-side asset register using publicly accessible corporate records and the group's own commercial documentation. That register was the practical foundation of the application.

A second complication arose when the respondent's primary assets turned out to be split across two Mainland provinces. This required parallel applications to two Intermediate People's Courts. The institution transmitted both. The sequencing of those filings, and the timing between them, required coordination with the HKIAC case management timeline.

What was the outcome and what transfers to other mandates?

The assets were preserved. Both courts granted the applications within a working period that, while not instantaneous, preceded any material dissipation. The arbitration proceeded. The tribunal ultimately issued its award in the claimant's favour. At that point the preserved assets formed the basis for enforcement under the arbitral-award mutual-enforcement Arrangement between the Mainland and Hong Kong – a separate mechanism, distinct from the interim-measures regime, but one whose value depends entirely on there being assets to enforce against.

The qualitative lesson is this: interim measures and enforcement are not separate strategic questions. They are the beginning and the end of the same sequence. A party that wins an award against a Mainland counterparty but never took interim measures during the arbitration will frequently arrive at enforcement with a different asset picture than the one that existed when the dispute arose. The Arrangement of 2019 removed the principal structural barrier to acting early. The remaining barriers are practical: asset identification, speed of filing, and understanding the security requirements of the receiving court.

We regularly act on cross-border mandates of this kind, from the pre-commencement preservation stage through to award enforcement. The matters that succeed share two features: early legal engagement and a realistic picture of where the assets actually sit.

For a structured read on asset recovery strategy in parallel with a Hong Kong arbitration, our broader disputes and arbitration practice sets out the full range of mechanisms available. For context on how enforcement develops after an award is issued, see our matter note on arbitrating a construction or infrastructure dispute in Asia. The asset-tracing and recovery considerations that follow a Mainland counterparty award are addressed further in our note on post-award asset tracing in Mainland China.

If an earlier preservation attempt stalled, or if a current matter involves a Mainland counterparty with dispersed assets and an HKIAC or other Hong Kong-seated clause, a second read at this stage can identify whether the route through the Arrangement remains open and what the filing sequence requires.

What foreign counsel most commonly misread about this mechanism

The most frequent error we see from foreign-qualified counsel instructing into this process is treating the Arrangement as an extension of the emergency-arbitrator mechanism under the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules. They are not the same thing. An emergency arbitrator under the HKIAC Rules can grant interim relief binding on the parties as a matter of the arbitration. That relief does not carry direct enforcement weight in the Mainland courts as a preservation order. The Arrangement is a separate channel – it runs through the Mainland court system, not through the arbitral institution as a decision-maker. The institution acts as a conduit, not a grantor.

A second misreading is the assumption that a Mainland courts will apply a broadly equivalent standard to an English-law without notice injunction (an injunction granted without prior notice to the respondent, commonly used in common-law systems to prevent asset dissipation). Mainland property preservation procedure has its own internal logic: specificity of assets, adequacy of security, and a prima facie merits test applied by the court. Counsel who prepare materials in the style of a common-law injunction application, without addressing those specific requirements, produce applications that are either rejected or returned for amendment. The revision cycle costs days. Days matter when assets are moving.

A third error is failing to account for the role of the applicant's security obligation. Mainland courts may require the applicant to lodge security – often in the form of a guarantee or deposit – before the preservation order is granted. The amount and form of that security varies. Planning for it in advance, including obtaining a suitable guarantee instrument on short notice, is part of the pre-filing preparation, not an afterthought.

Related practices

Disputes & Arbitration – cross-border arbitration, enforcement, and interim-measures strategy
Holding Structures – structuring offshore and Hong Kong holding entities for enforcement-readiness

Frequently asked questions

What is the first step in seeking interim measures from Mainland courts in aid of a Hong Kong arbitration?

The first step is to confirm that the arbitration is administered by an institution designated under the Arrangement – the HKIAC is a designated body – and to identify with specificity the Mainland assets proposed for preservation. Once those elements are in place, the application is prepared and lodged through the institution, which transmits to the relevant Intermediate People's Court in the place where the respondent is domiciled or the assets are located. The arbitration itself must be commenced concurrently or promptly thereafter.

What documents are needed for interim measures from Mainland courts in aid of a Hong Kong arbitration?

The core documentation includes: a certified copy of the arbitration agreement (with a certified Chinese translation); evidence establishing a prima facie claim; a detailed description of the specific assets proposed for preservation, with supporting identification materials; a risk narrative demonstrating the urgency; and arrangements for any security the receiving court may require. The precision of the asset description is critical – Mainland courts require specific identification of accounts, property or receivables, not a general freeze. Translating all materials accurately and to the court's technical requirements is a separate preparation task.

How long does the process for obtaining interim measures from Mainland courts in aid of a Hong Kong arbitration usually take?

Timing depends on the receiving court's processing period and the completeness of the application materials. The process does not follow a single fixed timetable; courts in different Mainland provinces may move at different speeds. Applications that arrive fully documented and with security arrangements in place tend to move faster than incomplete ones returned for amendment. Parties should engage counsel familiar with the specific Intermediate People's Court in the target jurisdiction, verify the current processing norms for that court, and build realistic time expectations into their overall dispute strategy from the outset.

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

For a scoped view of your matter, contact info@lockhartyip.com. Discuss your matter →

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@lockhartyip.com.

Matter note: interim measures from Mainland courts in aid of a Hong Kong arbitration