Interim measures in Mainland China for Hong Kong-seated arbitrations

Hong Kong is widely regarded as one of the world's leading arbitration seats, and was ranked alongside Singapore as the leading choice in Asia in a recent survey by Queen Mary University of London. A key attraction is Hong Kong’s pro-arbitration framework and a judiciary with a strong track record of supporting (rather than re-litigating) arbitral proceedings.

Hong Kong operates under the PRC's "One Country, Two Systems" principle and maintains a common law legal system that is independent from the PRC. Hong Kong also benefits from a reciprocal arrangement with Mainland China that empowers the courts of both jurisdictions to award interim measures in support of arbitration seated in the other territory.

Since the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings came into effect on 1 October 2019 (Interim Measures Arrangement), parties to Hong Kong‑seated, institutionally administered arbitrations have been able to apply to PRC courts for interim measures to preserve assets, evidence or conduct, before any final award is issued. The arrangement has become a distinctive feature in Hong Kong-seated arbitrations over the years, and has given Hong Kong a unique advantage when it comes to disputes involving PRC assets or evidence.

What is the Interim Measures Arrangement?

To rely on the Interim Measures Arrangement, an entity must be a party to arbitral proceedings seated in Hong Kong and administered by qualifying institutions including Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, International Chamber of Commerce Hong Kong and other institutional providers (the current list of qualifying institutions can be found here). Notably, Hong Kong law does not need to be the governing law of the dispute for parties to benefit from the arrangement.

A key feature is that relief can be sought even before the administering institution has formally accepted the arbitration. In this event, a party can apply for relief directly to an Intermediate People's Court (IPC), the second-lowest level court in the PRC, either where the respondent is domiciled or when the property or evidence is located. If granted, the applicant must then commence the arbitration at the arbitral institution and provide the PRC court with the institution's Letter of Acceptance within 30 days after the measure is issued.

If the arbitration has already been accepted by the institution, the applicant must first request a Letter of Acceptance from the administering institution before applying to the PRC court. For reference, HKIAC issues letters of acceptance within 24 hours of receipt of a complete application.

The arrangement is reciprocal. Any party to arbitral proceedings in Mainland China may apply to the Hong Kong courts for interim measures pursuant to Hong Kong law.

What must the applicant prove to obtain interim measures?

In the PRC courts, an applicant must establish that, if the measure requested is not put in place urgently, the applicant’s legitimate rights and interests may suffer irreparable damage, or the enforcement of the arbitral award may become difficult (Article 5). This threshold is relatively lower than the test for interim measures in Hong Kong where applicants must show, amongst other things, that (i) the applicant has a good arguable case and (ii) there is a real risk of dissipation of assets from the jurisdiction that would render any award ineffective.

In the PRC courts, applicants may also be required to provide security – of a type which is unspecified in the Agreement – to compensate the respondent if the applicant is unsuccessful during the proceedings. Applicants to the Hong Kong courts may be required to provide the usual cross-undertaking in damages and provide security for costs pursuant to Article 8.

Applications are made in accordance with PRC Civil Procedure Law, PRC Arbitration Law and any other relevant judicial interpretations. Helpfully, the Supreme People's Court of the PRC has also published twelve template documents with practical guidance to assist parties seeking interim measures. The HKIAC has produced an English version which can be found here. The FAQs on the HKIAC website also offer useful practical advice for applicants.

Why is this important?

Hong Kong is the first arbitration venue outside of Mainland China where parties to arbitrations may obtain interim relief in support of proceedings from Mainland Courts. A similar arrangement was later introduced for the Macao Special Administrative Region on 25 March 2022.

Based on the public information released by HKIAC, as of 10 September 2026, the HKIAC has been informed of 143 decisions on interim relief issued by Mainland Chinese courts. Of these, 136 granted applications for preservation of assets and 1 granted an application for preservation of conduct.

The total value of assets preserved by the 143 decisions was RMB 32.8 billion (approximately USD 4.8 billion). The average time taken by Mainland courts to issue a decision was 28 days from receipt of an application (median time of 21 days).

These figures illustrate why the Interim Measures Arrangement has become a key toolkit for parties involved in Hong Kong-seated arbitration with a Mainland nexus.

The relatively low threshold for obtaining the interim measures in Mainland China, and the speed in obtaining interim relief, makes this feature of Hong Kong-seated arbitration a particularly attractive option for parties dealing with individuals or organisations with assets or evidence in Mainland China.

Since the Interim Measures Arrangement came to effect in 1 October 2019, the Supplemental Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards followed suit and came into force on 19 May 2021, enabling parties to arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong and Mainland China also to apply for preservation measures after an arbitral award is rendered. This further strengthens the available enforcement options for parties in the two regions, and ultimately reinforces Hong Kong's role as a bridge for cross-boundary disputes involving Mainland China.

Key takeaways:

1. Consider Hong Kong where Mainland assets or evidence are in play. Strategically choosing Hong Kong as the arbitral seat on the outset can mitigate potential flight risk if a counterparty has Mainland assets or evidence.
2. Interim relief can be obtained quickly under the Arrangement. This can be particularly valuable where time is critical and there is a risk of dissipation of assets or evidence.
3. The Interim Measures Arrangement can materially improve recovery prospects. The standard of proof for obtaining interim measures in Mainland courts is relatively lower than that required to obtain an interim relief under the standard procedure in Hong Kong courts.