Update on commercial arbitration

Hong Kong and Mainland China Agree upon Bilateral Arrangement Regarding Interim Measures for Arbitration

04/04/2019 09:56

Peter YuenHelen H. ShiDamien McDonaldOlga BoltenkoMatthew Townsend (Fangda Partners)

In a significant development for the region, Mainland China and Hong Kong have announced a bilateral arrangement by which the Chinese courts will now recognise and enforce interim measures in support of institutional arbitration seated in Hong Kong (the “Arrangement”).1)

As China has no equivalent measures in place with any other non-Mainland jurisdictions, the Arrangement will further enhance Hong Kong’s attractiveness as a seat for China-related international arbitrations. Parties may now conduct “offshore” arbitration in Hong Kong whilst keeping open the potential for interim measures in Mainland China.


Under PRC law the power to grant interim relief in support of arbitration rests exclusively with the courts.  Importantly, whilst the PRC courts are known to award interim relief in support of domestic arbitration proceedings, they have historically been unwilling to award such measures in support of arbitrations seated outside of Mainland China.

This treatment extends to arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong, which following its 1997 handover to the PRC retains its own separate legal system based upon English common law. Whilst the two jurisdictions have entered into reciprocal arrangements with respect to the enforcement of arbitral awards and court judgments (signed in 2000 and 2019 respectively), neither instrument covers interim measures in support of arbitration.

Consequently, international commercial parties agreeing arbitration clauses have in the past had no option but to arbitrate in Mainland China if they wish to ensure the availability of interim measures in the PRC.

Recent developments had however pointed to a potential change in approach and practice by the PRC courts. For instance, as previously reported in this blog, the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court in central China granted interim relief to a Claimant in a Hong Kong seated arbitration. However, as there is no system of precedent in China’s legal system, such cases do not formally bind other courts.

The Arrangement

The Arrangement was signed on 2 April 2019 and will come into force on a date to be announced. It empowers the PRC courts to grant interim measures in support of administered Hong Kong arbitration proceedings.

The Arrangement has certain limitations. It applies only to arbitrations administered by specific institutions, of which a full list will be published in due course. It does not however extend to ‘ad hoc’ (i.e. unadminstered) arbitrations. PRC law does not permit such arbitrations domestically, although in 2009 the PRC Supreme People’s Court confirmed that arbitration awards rendered in ad hoc proceedings in Hong Kong were enforceable in the PRC.

Perhaps most importantly, the relief in question is typically limited to preservation measures against assets or property. Although PRC courts have since 2017 also been empowered to grant mandatory or prohibitory injunctions (Chinese Civil Procedure Law, article 100), such orders will rarely be granted.

The Arrangement also provides for reciprocal rights to the effect that a party to arbitral proceedings in Mainland China may apply to the Hong Kong courts for interim measures (a relief which is already available under Hong Kong law).

Significance of the Arrangement

The Arrangement is an important development. It provides parties to China-related transactions with a welcome additional option when selecting the seat of arbitration. As an alternative to arbitrating in Mainland China, such parties can now agree to arbitrate in Hong Kong, whilst being assured that they have the possibility of applying for interim relief in Mainland China.

The new instrument therefore further consolidates Hong Kong’s position as a unique jurisdiction for the resolution of China-related disputes through arbitration. Hong Kong already occupies a hybrid position as a part of the PRC sovereign State which nonetheless maintains its own independent common law system, and judiciary.  On the one hand it is a separate independent jurisdiction, whilst on the other it enjoys cultural, linguistic and geographical proximity to the Mainland. The new Arrangement further enhances Hong Kong’s claim to be the premier jurisdiction for resolving China-related international disputes.

For original upload, click here

Share Post
  • IP Arbitration on the Rise 30/07/2019 14:26

    The relevance of intellectual property in business is on the rise, in particular concerning cross-border transactions. Accordingly, the willingness to defend such rights is also becoming stronger.

  • Expert evidence: practical tips for managing party-appointed experts 05/06/2019 15:04

    Large-scale international infrastructure and construction projects always involve factual questions of what, where and when. However, responsibility invariably turns on more intricate questions of cause and effect and expert evidence is usually required, often across more than one discipline. The expert phase is often therefore the most critical, and sometimes costly, part of the arbitration process. This article offers some practical tips for managing party-appointed experts in arbitrations.

  • A Critique of Double Standards on Dispute Resolution Mechanisms of EU in Bilateral Investment Treaties and Double Taxation Treaties 23/05/2019 10:24

    This post aims at highlighting an inconsistency in the law of the European Union (“EU”) in regards to the comparison of the treatment of Bilateral Investment Treaties (“BITs”) and Double Taxation Treaties (“DTTs”) concluded between EU Member States. The inconsistency lies in the diametrically different approaches adopted by EU law and its institutions (“EU Institutions”) towards the dispute resolution mechanisms contained in these international instruments.

  • Comprehensive guidance for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards 20/05/2019 16:52

    The courts of the foreign state in which a foreign arbitral award was issued have jurisdiction over any objection or dispute concerning its validity and the Greek courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate an action to nullify a foreign arbitral award for the reasons set out in Articles 70, 897 and 901 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

  • Arbitrating in CEE & CIS: Transparency, Accountability and Choice of Arbitrators 20/05/2019 16:46

    The second edition of the Jeantet “Arbitrating in CEE and CIS” roundtable was held during the Paris Arbitration Week on Thursday 4 April 2019 at the Jeantet offices. The topic of this year’s edition was “Transparency, Accountability and Choice of Arbitrators”.

  • French court rules that mandatory expert determination provisions do not render arbitration clauses inapplicable 20/05/2019 16:41

    The arbitral tribunal's power to determine its jurisdiction (known as 'compétence-compétence') is a fundamental principle of French arbitration law. Pursuant to Article 1465 of the French Civil Procedure Code, "[t]he arbitral tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine challenges to its jurisdiction".(1) Thus, arbitrators have the exclusive power to determine the scope of their jurisdictional powers (and their validity), including with respect to the subject matter of disputes covered by an arbitration agreement. The practical consequence of this exclusivity is that a court seised of a dispute that is subject to an arbitration agreement must decline jurisdiction. That is unless, as set out in Article 1448 of the Civil Procedure Code, an arbitral tribunal has not yet been seised of the dispute and the arbitration agreement is "manifestly void or manifestly inapplicable".

  • Arbitration Agreements Concluded by Agents and the Specific Authority Issue 03/05/2019 15:56

    In order to conclude an enforceable arbitration agreement, various validity conditions are required. The authority of the signatory agent to conclude an arbitration agreement on behalf of the principal is one of these requirements. In some jurisdictions, an explicit/specific authority is also required. An agent authorized with a general power of attorney, but without an explicit statement on the authority to conclude an arbitration agreement, is not entitled to conclude so on behalf of the principal. If an arbitration agreement is concluded by an agent who lacks specific authority, the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction may be challenged, the award may be annulled, or the enforcement of the award may be rejected.

  • New CIArb Guidelines on Witness Conferencing 25/04/2019 09:17

    On Tuesday 22 April 2019, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Singapore) issued their Guidelines for Witness Conferencing in International Arbitration (the “Guidelines”),1) providing tribunals, witnesses and parties with guidance in the conduct of witness conferencing.