1.1 A legal system comprising of an appropriate framework encompassing civil procedural rules is essential to manage the expectations of stakeholders with commercial interests. This framework is also essential for ensuring that legal disputes are resolved satisfactorily. The satisfactory resolution of the legal disputes in courts in any jurisdiction will ensure that local and international economies are encouraged, while also ensuring enhanced cross border trading. Therefore, a reliable civil procedure system, in theory, supports the disposal of commercial disputes without full civil trials or without final determination by the courts. As a result, an efficient civil procedure system in any jurisdiction will promote the legislators’ objective of ensuring that legal cases are disposed effectively in its civil/commercial courts.

1.2 In most developed jurisdictions such as England & Wales, the role of interim remedies within the framework of civil litigation is vital to fulfil the objective of disposing of legal disputes without resorting to full trials. Needless to say, the availability of interim remedies to litigants in England & Wales has ensured that a substantial number of international commercial disputes are resolved in England & Wales. In many respects, over the decades, the jurisdiction of England & Wales has been a pioneering jurisdiction that has introduced novel solutions, such as practical interim remedies for commercial legal disputes. It would not be erroneous to suggest that the availability of the interim remedies in English courts has ensured that England & Wales remain a popular forum in which to resolve international commercial disputes pursuant to Civil Procedural Rules 1998 as revised over the years (hereinafter “CPR”).¹ This book has considered all the amendments to CPR up to December 2020.

1.3 Conversely, the concept of provisional remedies is relatively very new in China. This is not surprising, taking into account the fact that the civil procedure system in China has no ancient origins.² After the Chinese economic reforms commenced in 1978, the first Civil Procedure Law (for trial implementation) was promulgated in 1982 which included the preservation procedural system to seek provisional measures termed as preservation measures in China. Thereafter, the first actual civil procedure law that was applicable throughout China was promulgated only in 1991, namely, the Civil Procedure Law 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “CPL 1991”).³ CPL 1991 also revised the preservation system for seeking preservation remedies from the Chinese courts.

1.5 Interim orders are known by different terminologies in different jurisdictions, for example interim measures/interim remedies/provisional measures/preservation orders/conservatory measures /interlocutory measures. In England & Wales, interim measures are popularly known as interim remedies, whilst in China, the interim measures are popularly known as preservation measures.

1.6 In most jurisdictions, such as England & Wales, these interim measures are not the cause of action in itself,⁵ but are rather an interim fix as a procedural remedy to maintain the status quo in legal cases until a full civil trial can resolve the issues between the parties. These interim measures also intend to protect the parties from irreparable harms until the all issues including the quantum of damages are resolved between the parties to civil/commercial disputes.

1.8 In any jurisdiction, the time from the commencement of a civil action until a judgment rendered by a judge will take months and sometimes even more than a year. As a result, in most jurisdictions, the advent of interim measures has gained prominence to maintain the status quo between the parties to civil/commercial disputes. In addition, increasingly during civil/commercial litigation,⁷ sophisticated parties are employing measures to sabotage opponents’ chances of success in civil/commercial litigation. For all purposes, in this book, while discussing interim measures, there is no distinction made between commercial and civil litigation for either jurisdiction. For example, some of the measures employed by the parties could include destroying evidence or even could include browbeating their opponents. At times, these strong-arm tactics exert immense commercial strain on the claimants’ businesses and even can affect the relationship of these claimants with their other contractual parties. At times, defendants may also require similar protections through interim measures. Therefore, the importance of the provisional measures is critical for transnational commercial litigations, and needless to say these litigations are notorious for time delays and uncertainties.⁸ Additionally, in China, during criminal proceedings, at times there are issues of compensation, and therefore in such incidental civil litigation proceedings and/or proceedings involving administrative cases, preservation measures can be applied by the Chinese courts. However, this sub-topic is not discussed as it is beyond the scope of this book.