​A guide to interim measures in China

A guide to interim measures in China
When embroiled in a legal dispute, it's natural to want to safeguard your rights and interests while awaiting a final decision. Enter interim measures: provisional relief sought from courts or other judicial bodies to provide temporary relief until a final decision is made.
 
Requesting interim measures in China can be complex, and different types are available, making it a daunting task for many. Fear not, for we have got you covered! This post will delve into the intricacies of interim measures in China, including the types available, when they can be requested, the risks involved, and the request process.
 
Interim measures, also known as "interlocutory relief," "interlocutory injunctions," or "ancillary relief," are designed to preserve or restore the status quo or protect a party's rights during the pendency of proceedings. These measures may be issued by courts or arbitral tribunals in China. The Interim Measures of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) provide the legal framework for interim measures in China, with Article 41 of the Civil Procedure Law being a primary reference point.
 
Interim measures are available in various legal proceedings in China, including commercial litigation and first-instance trials. However, there are inherent risks in requesting interim measures, such as the other party being granted more favorable interim measures, using them to gain an unfair advantage or delaying proceedings. It is, therefore, essential to weigh the potential benefits and risks before requesting interim measures. Waiting until the case has been decided may sometimes be a more prudent approach.
 
The types of interim measures available in China include property preservation measures, evidence preservation measures, party and asset investigation measures, and restraining measures. Property preservation measures aim to preserve assets in dispute, while evidence preservation measures seek to protect or preserve relevant evidence. Party and asset investigation measures enable parties to investigate and obtain information on their opponents, while restraining measures may prohibit parties from engaging in certain activities.
 
In China, obtaining interim measures requires submitting a request to the court, which then chooses whether or not to hear the case. If the court agrees to continue, it notifies the other party of the request for interim measures, who then has the chance to react. The court analyzes the parties' arguments before deciding whether or not to grant the motion for temporary relief.
 
There are various dangers to obtaining interim measures in China, including the opposing party's failure to comply with them, attempting to overturn them by a higher court, or the measures' detrimental influence on settlement discussions. Seeking interim measures is also aggressive, possibly jeopardizing settlement chances and raising litigation expenses for both sides.
 
Understanding the complexities of interim measures in China may take time and effort. But, equipped with this post's expertise and awareness of the kinds, hazards, and request procedures, you may approach the matter confidently and make educated choices that safeguard your rights and interests.
 
Arbitration in China: The Burden of Proof and Its Implications
In Chinese arbitration, the weighty burden of proof can have staggering implications for the parties embroiled in legal battles. It is the onus of the claimant to furnish evidence of their claim, and the evidentiary threshold is insurmountably high. This can be momentous, impacting the likelihood of a party's triumph and the magnitude of resources that must be invested in the arbitration process. The weight of the burden of proof in Chinese arbitration
In Chinese arbitration, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant to prove their case. The required evidence standard is incredibly high, leaving claimants with the difficult challenge of persuading the tribunal with credible and reliable evidence to succeed in arbitration. Implications of the burden of proof on arbitration parties
The burden of proof holds colossal sway over the parties involved in the arbitration. The claimant must bear the burden of presenting evidence to substantiate their case, and the bar for evidentiary proof is insurmountable. This could impact their probability of winning the case and the time and financial resources they need to expand the cogent case. The burden of proof can be a game-changer in the arbitration process. If the claimant cannot produce reliable evidence to support their claim, the likelihood of their triumph diminishes significantly.
Moreover, the burden of proof can significantly influence the time and financial resources the parties need to expend on their case. To be successful in the arbitration, claimants must present evidence that is both credible and reliable. The weight of the burden of proof can considerably impact the outcome of an arbitration case, and parties must take cognizance of this fact while preparing their case. What are the implications of the burden of proof on China's arbitration process?
The weight of the burden of proof in Chinese arbitration can lead to several implications for the arbitration process. The party carrying the burden of proof must proffer evidence first. This can work against them, as the opposing party can counter their evidence. Second, the party with the burden of proof must convince the tribunal of their case by establishing the preponderance of the evidence. This is a challenging standard, requiring them to prove that their case is more likely than not to be true. Third, suppose the party carrying the burden of proof loses the arbitration. In that case, it may have to pay more, as the tribunal may award costs to the opposing party if it finds that the party with the burden of proof failed to meet its evidentiary burden. Fourth, the party with the burden of proof may find it harder to win the arbitration if the other party has more evidence. They must have more evidence and demonstrate to the tribunal that their evidence is more credible and reliable than the other party's.