Interim measures from Mainland courts in aid

A Hong Kong-seated arbitration gives an award creditor access to one of the most distinctive cross-border tools in Asian dispute practice: the right to seek preservation orders – over assets, evidence or conduct – directly from Mainland Chinese courts, before the award is even made. That right flows from 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 Special Administrative Region (the Interim Measures Arrangement), which has been in effect since 1 October 2019. For a principal whose counterparty holds assets in the Mainland, the Arrangement is not procedural machinery. It is the difference between a collectible award and an unenforceable one.

This note sets out when and why a foreign principal reaches for this mechanism, the step-by-step route we run with locally licensed counsel, the documents the client must control, and the asset endgame that the whole exercise is designed to reach.

Why foreign principals need this mechanism – and what triggers the decision

Most parties to a Hong Kong arbitration think about interim measures late. The application arrives in our practice after a counterparty has begun to move assets, restructure its Mainland operating entities, or simply become unresponsive. At that point, the practical question is not which regime applies – it is whether there is still time to use it effectively.

The trigger is nearly always structural. A foreign group – European, Middle Eastern, Central Asian – holds a contract with a Mainland-registered counterparty. The contract names the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) or designates Hong Kong as the seat. The dispute arises. The foreign principal's counsel in their home jurisdiction confirms the arbitration agreement is valid. What that counsel cannot advise on is whether preservation of the counterparty's Mainland assets is still available, how quickly it must move, and what a Mainland court will require in order to grant it.

The answer depends on the Interim Measures Arrangement and the procedural rules of the people's courts (the Mainland's court system at provincial and national level) in the jurisdiction where the target assets sit. Those are two distinct regimes, and the failure to understand both simultaneously is the most common error we see foreign principals make.

A second common trigger is the window itself. Once a Mainland counterparty signals it intends to dissipate or transfer assets – a board restructuring notice, a change of registered address, a rumoured asset sale – the window for effective preservation closes fast. Acting before a dissipation event, rather than after, is the commercial logic that drives every instruction of this kind we receive. Our cross-border disputes and arbitration practice is built around that timing reality.

The governing instrument: what the Interim Measures Arrangement actually provides

The Interim Measures Arrangement – effective 1 October 2019 – is the instrument that extended the reach of Mainland interim-measures jurisdiction to arbitrations seated in Hong Kong at designated qualifying institutions. HKIAC is among those institutions. The Arrangement allows a party to a Hong Kong-seated HKIAC arbitration to apply directly to the Mainland court of competent jurisdiction for a preservation order covering property, evidence or conduct, at any stage of the arbitral proceedings, including before the tribunal is constituted.

That last point is critical in practice. The ability to seek preservation before the tribunal is formed closes the gap that used to exist when a party could not apply for Mainland interim measures until the arbitration was already underway. Our desk regularly sees cases where the entire value of the exercise lies in an application filed in the days immediately after the HKIAC registration – before the respondent has had time to reorganise its asset position.

The Arrangement operates alongside, not in place of, the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609), which governs the seat and the arbitral process in Hong Kong. The HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules – currently the 2024 Rules, effective 1 June 2024 – contain their own interim-measures and emergency-arbitrator provisions. Those provisions run in parallel with the Mainland mechanism. In practice, a sophisticated applicant considers both: the emergency-arbitrator route for relief that needs to be enforceable in multiple jurisdictions, and the Mainland court route for preservation of assets physically located in the Mainland.

The Arrangement does not, however, transform the Mainland court into an arm of the Hong Kong arbitration. The Mainland court applies its own procedural law to the application. It will assess whether the order is appropriate on its own terms, including any security or undertaking the applicant must provide. Understanding that dual character – the Arrangement as a bridge, the Mainland court as a sovereign forum with its own requirements – is the analytical starting point for every instruction.

For a broader view of our disputes and arbitration practice, including the full spectrum of cross-border enforcement work, see our Disputes & Arbitration practice page.

Contextual note: The sequence above describes the standard regulatory position. Your specific matter turns on the documents actually in place, the jurisdictions engaged, and the precise order of steps – which is where the outcome is shaped. To discuss whether the Arrangement applies to your arbitration agreement and counterparty position, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

The cross-border interface: Hong Kong as the forum and the Mainland as the enforcement terrain

The structural complexity of this mechanism is precisely that two legal systems must be engaged simultaneously, in a defined sequence, with neither substituting for the other. Hong Kong law governs the arbitration agreement, the seat, and the procedural rights of the parties under the Arbitration Ordinance and the HKIAC Rules. Mainland law governs the preservation application, the competent court, the evidentiary threshold, the form of any security, and the duration of the order.

This is not a theoretical distinction. The Mainland court that receives the preservation application will apply the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the supporting judicial interpretations. It will ask whether the applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case sufficient to justify preservation, whether there is urgency, and whether the applicant can provide security – typically a cash deposit or bank guarantee lodged with the Mainland court – as a condition of the order. The quantum and form of that security are determined by the Mainland court, not by the HKIAC or by the tribunal.

At the same time, the Hong Kong leg of the case continues. The HKIAC administers the arbitration. The tribunal, once constituted, may issue its own interim orders. The interplay between the tribunal's orders and the Mainland court's preservation order – which takes priority, how they interact, and what happens when the tribunal's final award is made – requires a coordinated view that spans both systems.

For foreign principals accustomed to single-system litigation, this dual structure is unfamiliar and occasionally alarming. Our role is to hold both sides of the structure: advising on the international arbitration proceedings and the Arrangement mechanism, while working alongside locally licensed Hong Kong firms and Mainland-qualified practitioners on the steps that require local admission. No single adviser working in isolation can manage this correctly. The structure demands coordination, and the coordination demands a centre of gravity – which, in our practice, sits in Hong Kong.

The asset endgame is what the entire exercise is designed to achieve. A preservation order freezes assets in place pending the award. When the award is made, the enforcement mechanism shifts to the Arrangement on Reciprocal Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the Awards Enforcement Arrangement, in effect since 1999, supplemented in 2020). That Arrangement allows enforcement of a Hong Kong arbitral award before the Mainland people's courts, and since the 2021 amendment to that regime, simultaneous enforcement applications in both jurisdictions are permitted. The preservation order obtained during the arbitration is therefore not an end in itself – it is the bridge between the commencement of proceedings and the enforcement of the award over the assets that were preserved.

The route we run, step by step

From the moment of instruction, the route proceeds in a defined order. Deviation from that order – most often, applying to the Mainland court before confirming the HKIAC filing is on record – produces avoidable procedural failures that delay the entire exercise.

The first step is confirmation of the arbitration agreement and the seat. The Arrangement applies only to arbitrations seated in Hong Kong at qualifying institutions. If the agreement is ambiguous on the seat, or if the institution designated is not a qualifying one under the Arrangement, the Mainland court route is not immediately available. We assess the agreement at the outset, and where it is defective we advise on the realistic alternatives before any application is filed.

The second step is filing with HKIAC. The Arrangement requires that the Hong Kong arbitration be registered with the HKIAC before the Mainland court application is made. This is a condition precedent, not an administrative step. We prepare and file the HKIAC case registration, and obtain the HKIAC certification that the arbitration is on record. That certificate accompanies the Mainland court application.

The third step is identifying the competent Mainland court. The court with jurisdiction over the preservation application is generally the court at the place where the property is located, where the respondent is domiciled, or at another connecting point recognised under Mainland procedural law. Identifying the right court – and ensuring that the assets the client wishes to preserve are within that court's territorial reach – requires input from Mainland-qualified practitioners. We coordinate that assessment as part of the instruction.

The fourth step is preparing the preservation application. The application to the Mainland court must be in Chinese, comply with Mainland civil procedure requirements, and be accompanied by the HKIAC certification, the arbitration agreement (with a certified translation if in English), evidence of the claim, and a proposal for the security the applicant is prepared to provide. Defects in any of these elements lead to rejection or delay. We work with locally licensed Hong Kong firms and Mainland-qualified counsel to prepare a complete package before submission.

The fifth step is the security question. The Mainland court will ordinarily require the applicant to lodge security as a condition of granting the preservation order. The form – cash, bank guarantee, or other instrument accepted by the court – and the quantum are court-determined. The client must be prepared to mobilise that security quickly. In instructions where the applicant is a foreign group without a Mainland banking relationship, sourcing acceptable security instruments is a logistical challenge we work through before the application is filed, not after.

The sixth step is the order and its duration. A Mainland preservation order is time-limited and may be subject to challenge by the respondent. We advise on monitoring the order, responding to any challenge, and coordinating the Mainland court position with the ongoing HKIAC arbitral proceedings.

If you are at an earlier stage – considering whether to include an HKIAC clause in a contract with a Mainland counterparty – our guide on drafting an HKIAC arbitration clause for a counterparty in the UAE addresses the clause-drafting decisions that determine whether the Arrangement will be available downstream.

If an earlier filing attempt has stalled or produced an adverse result, a fresh read of the materials can identify what went wrong and whether the route remains open. Write to us at info@lockhartyip.com with a brief summary of where matters stand.

Documents and decisions the client must own

The Mainland court cannot grant effective preservation unless the applicant's own documentation is in order. In our experience, the most common source of delay is not the court or the procedure – it is the client's file.

The arbitration agreement is the foundation. The client must be able to produce the original or a certified copy of the contract containing the arbitration clause, with a Chinese translation. If the agreement spans multiple documents – a framework agreement, a supplemental protocol, a side letter – all relevant instruments must be assembled and the hierarchy between them clarified before any application is filed.

Evidence of the claim is the second requirement. The Mainland court will need to be satisfied that the applicant has a prima facie basis for the claim in the arbitration. That means contemporaneous documentation of the underlying dispute: the contract, the breach, the demand, the response (or absence of response), and any quantification of the loss. The client must own and be able to produce this material at short notice.

Corporate identity documentation is the third requirement. The applicant entity must be properly identified: its certificate of incorporation or equivalent, its authorised representatives, and, where the applicant is a foreign company, the relevant legalisation or apostille chain. Many foreign companies approach the Mainland court application without their corporate documentation in order for Chinese legal purposes. Rectifying that mid-application adds weeks.

The security instrument is the fourth decision point. As noted above, the quantum and form of security are court-determined, but the client must decide in advance what instruments it can mobilise and at what speed. A foreign group that has never dealt with a Mainland court should not assume it can produce a compliant bank guarantee overnight.

The instruction to us, at the outset, should therefore include: a copy of the contract and the arbitration agreement, the key communications evidencing the dispute, the corporate structure of both parties (to the extent known), and a preliminary view of the assets the client wishes to preserve and their location. With those materials, we can assess the route, identify the gaps, and move.

What foreign counsel typically miss – and why it matters

Foreign principals with European or US counsel are well-served on the validity of the arbitration agreement and the procedural rules of the HKIAC arbitration. What those counsel are rarely positioned to address is the Mainland court dimension. The gaps we see recur.

The most common is the assumption that the preservation order can wait. It cannot. A counterparty that anticipates an arbitration – or that has already received the HKIAC notice – will begin to manage its asset position. The Arrangement is most powerful when the application is filed before the respondent has taken steps to reorganise. Filing quickly, with a complete package, is the variable that distinguishes effective relief from an order that arrives too late to preserve anything of value.

The second common error is treating the Mainland court as an administrative window. It is not. The court will exercise judgment on the application. An incomplete submission, a defective security proposal, or a translation error in the arbitration agreement are each sufficient grounds for rejection or a request for supplemental materials that consumes the time advantage the application was designed to create.

The third error is failing to coordinate the Mainland court application with the HKIAC proceedings. The HKIAC secretariat, the emergency arbitrator (if one is engaged), and the Mainland court are three distinct actors with distinct procedures. Instructions to us on cross-border interim-measures matters are structured to coordinate all three, with a single point of accountability for the client.

A micro-scenario from our cross-border practice illustrates the stakes. A Central Asian technology group had a long-form services agreement with a Mainland counterparty, with HKIAC as the designated institution and Hong Kong as the seat. A payment dispute arose. The group's home-jurisdiction counsel confirmed the clause was enforceable – and then paused while they sought local briefing on the Mainland dimension. During that pause, the counterparty transferred two key operating subsidiaries to a related party. By the time the preservation application was filed, the most valuable assets were no longer in the name of the contracting entity. The award, when it came, was largely uncollectible from the entity that remained. The Arrangement had been available throughout. The window was not used.

A second pattern arises in mid-market acquisitions. A European corporate acquires a minority stake in a Mainland joint venture. The joint-venture agreement provides for HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong. A dispute over the valuation of the stake arises at exit. The European group files for arbitration and, on instruction from our desk, immediately seeks a Mainland court order preserving the shares of the joint-venture entity pending the award. The preservation order is granted within the statutory period. The award creditor holds a preserved asset when the award is issued.

The checklist: what to assess before moving

Before any application is filed, the following questions must be resolved. Not all of them require a definitive answer, but none should be left unexamined.

Does the arbitration agreement designate Hong Kong as the seat and a qualifying institution – HKIAC or another institution recognised under the Interim Measures Arrangement?
Has the arbitration been registered with the HKIAC, and is the HKIAC certification available?
Where precisely are the assets the client wishes to preserve, and which Mainland court has territorial jurisdiction over them?
Is the applicant entity's corporate documentation in order for Chinese legal purposes, including any required legalisation?
What form of security can the client mobilise, and on what timeline?
Has a Chinese-language version of the arbitration agreement been prepared, or is a certified translation required?
Is the emergency-arbitrator route under the HKIAC 2024 Rules also appropriate, or is the Mainland court route the primary tool for this matter?
Has the client reviewed the New York Convention enforcement route for any non-Mainland enforcement step? Our guide on the New York Convention enforcement route through Hong Kong sets out that dimension.

The checklist is not a substitute for legal analysis. Each question has a factual answer that shapes the route. Where the answer to any of the first three questions is uncertain, the route assessment – and the instruction – should begin immediately.

The enforcement endgame: where the award actually lands

Interim preservation is a means to an end. The end is the enforcement of the final award over the preserved assets. Two mechanisms govern that step for Mainland-China-sited assets.

The first is the Arrangement on Reciprocal Enforcement of Arbitral Awards. A Hong Kong arbitral award – made by an HKIAC tribunal seated in Hong Kong – can be enforced before the Mainland people's courts under this Arrangement, without the need to establish an independent cause of action. The enforcement application is made to the Mainland court of competent jurisdiction. Assets that were preserved under the Interim Measures Arrangement are, at the enforcement stage, already identified and held. The bridge between the preservation order and the enforcement application is what makes the two-step structure strategically coherent.

The second consideration is the interaction between the Mainland enforcement route and any Hong Kong enforcement proceedings. Since the 2021 amendment to the Awards Enforcement Arrangement, simultaneous enforcement applications in both Hong Kong and the Mainland are permitted. That simultaneity matters for a counterparty with assets in both jurisdictions – it forecloses the sequencing tactic of waiting for one enforcement proceeding to conclude before addressing the other.

For awards against parties with assets outside the Mainland and Hong Kong, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) applies. Hong Kong is a Convention jurisdiction. HKIAC awards made at a Hong Kong seat are enforceable in over 170 Convention jurisdictions. The Arrangement and the Convention operate as parallel tracks, not competing ones. A creditor with a counterparty that has assets in the Mainland and in a third Convention jurisdiction can pursue both simultaneously.

The decision matrix for the enforcement stage runs as follows. If the assets are in the Mainland: the Awards Enforcement Arrangement is the primary route; the Interim Measures Arrangement preserves the asset position pending enforcement. If the assets are in Hong Kong: enforcement is by registration or a separate action before the Court of First Instance, depending on the nature of the award. If the assets are in a third jurisdiction: the New York Convention route applies, coordinated with the Hong Kong and Mainland proceedings where the counterparty has a presence in both.

At each stage, the instruction to us encompasses the full route: not just the preservation application, but the connection between that application and the final enforcement step. That is what the engagement is structured to deliver.

Related practices

Disputes & Arbitration – cross-border enforcement, arbitration, and Mainland–HK recognition proceedings
Holding Structures – structuring holding entities to optimise access to Hong Kong and offshore dispute forums

Frequently asked questions

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

The core documents are: the arbitration agreement (and the underlying contract), with a certified Chinese translation; the HKIAC certification that the arbitration has been registered; evidence of the claim – the contract, breach documentation, and loss quantification; the applicant's corporate identity documents in a form acceptable for Mainland court purposes, which may require legalisation; and a security proposal. Defects in any of these elements cause delay or rejection. Assembling a complete file before submission is the single most important preparation step.

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

The Mainland court is subject to its own procedural timelines, which vary by court and by the nature of the preservation order sought. We do not give estimates without knowing the specific court and asset class. What we can confirm is that the preparation phase – assembling the documents, obtaining the HKIAC certification, arranging the security instrument, and preparing the Chinese-language submission – typically takes longer than clients anticipate, particularly for foreign applicants without a standing Mainland legal relationship. Mobilising counsel and documentation quickly, before the respondent takes steps to reorganise its asset position, is the variable the applicant controls. Parties should verify the current procedural timelines for the relevant Mainland court with locally qualified practitioners before acting.

What does the route look like for interim measures from Mainland courts in aid of a Hong Kong arbitration?

The route runs in sequence. First: confirm the arbitration agreement names Hong Kong as the seat and a qualifying institution. Second: file the HKIAC case registration and obtain the HKIAC certification. Third: identify the Mainland court with territorial jurisdiction over the target assets. Fourth: prepare and file the preservation application, with all required documents, in Chinese. Fifth: address the security requirement as the court directs. Sixth: monitor the order and coordinate the Mainland court position with the ongoing arbitral proceedings, through to award and enforcement. At each step, Mainland-qualified practitioners work alongside our desk on the steps that require local admission.

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.

Interim measures from Mainland courts in aid of a Hong Kong arbitration