In cross-border arbitration, timing is everything — especially when there’s a risk that assets might vanish before a final award is handed down.
Interim measures, such as injunctions or preservation orders, serve as a critical tool to safeguard parties’ positions during the arbitral process.
Thanks to a recent update, parties arbitrating in Hong Kong now have more institutional options when seeking interim relief from PRC courts.
On 2 April 2025, the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the HKSAR (the “Arrangement”) added three more arbitral institutions to its whitelist.
That brings the total to nine institutions where parties can apply directly to Mainland courts for property preservation, evidence preservation, and conduct preservation.
A Quick Refresher: What is the Arrangement?
On 2 April 2019, the Hong Kong SAR government and the PRC Supreme People’s Court signed the Arrangement.
In short, the Arrangement enables courts in both jurisdictions to grant interim relief — such as injunctions, asset freezes, or evidence preservation orders — to support arbitrations seated in other jurisdictions. This means:
- If your arbitration is seated in Hong Kong, you can apply directly to Mainland courts for interim measures.
- If your arbitration is seated in Mainland, you can seek relief from the Hong Kong courts under local law.
Who Qualifies?
Article 2 of the Arrangement restricts its application to arbitral proceedings seated in Hong Kong and administered by:
- arbitral institutions established in the HKSAR or having their headquarters established in the HKSAR, and with their principal place of management located in the HKSAR;
- dispute resolution institutions or permanent offices set up in the HKSAR by international intergovernmental organizations of which the People’s Republic of China is a member; or
- dispute resolution institutions or permanent offices set up in the HKSAR by other arbitral institutions and which satisfy the criteria prescribed by the HKSAR Government (such as the number of arbitration cases and the amount in dispute, etc).
Article 2 further stipulates that the HKSAR Government and the Supreme People’s Court would jointly confirm the list of such institutions or permanent offices.
Latest Development
The approved list is reviewed every two years. The updated list, effective from 2 April 2025, now includes the following nine arbitral institutions (newest additions in bold):
- Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre
- Hong Kong Maritime Arbitration Group
- South China International Arbitration Center (HK)
- eBRAM International Online Dispute Resolution Centre
- Shanghai International Arbitration Center
- Asia Pacific Investment Arbitration Centre
- AALCO Hong Kong Regional Arbitration Centre
- China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Hong Kong Arbitration Center
- Secretariat of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce – Asia Office
Applying for Interim Measures in Hong Kong Courts
Where arbitral proceedings are seated in the Mainland (or other jurisdictions outside of Hong Kong), parties may apply to the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (CFI) for interim relief under the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) and the High Court Ordinance (Cap.4).
Under Section 45(2) of the Arbitration Ordinance, on application of any party, the court may, in relation to arbitral proceedings commenced or to be commenced in or outside Hong Kong, grant an interim measure. The purpose of this is often to facilitate the work of a tribunal outside Hong Kong that has primary jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings (Section 45(7)(b)). This complements the broader judicial framework under the High Court Ordinance which allows for powerful remedies such as Mareva injunctions (資產凍結令) and Anton Piller orders (容許查察令).
As highlighted in our previous article on interim-interim injunctions, the Hong Kong court is prepared to grant urgent interim relief when it is just and convenient to do so. In the recent case of Company A and Another v. Company C [2024] HKCFI 3505, the CFI granted a Mareva injunction and other relevant reliefs to facilitate the tribunal and preserve the status quo pending the Tribunal’s ruling and the issuance of the final award.
Implication of the Latest Development
The expanded list of qualified institutions under the Arrangement reinforces Hong Kong’s position as a trusted venue for international arbitration involving Mainland parties. It offers parties greater flexibility in selecting their arbitral forum without losing access to court assistance on the Mainland.
Need urgent relief to preserve assets?
Contact us to explore your options under the Arrangement — we can assist in securing interim measures in both Hong Kong and Mainland China Courts.