I. Introduction: The First PRC Judicial Practice of Issuing an Investigation Order in Support of International Arbitral Interim Measures
In May 2025, the Shanghai International Commercial Court issued an investigation order to assist an arbitral tribunal in collecting evidence. This case marks the first instance of a Chinese court issuing an investigation order to support evidence collection in international commercial arbitration directly based on an interim measure decided by an arbitral tribunal.
The underlying dispute involved a cross-border data service contract among three corporate entities: the claimant was a Hong Kong entity, and the respondents were Indian and Chinese entities, respectively. The core issue before the tribunal was determining whether a valid contract had been formed among the parties. Resolving this required identifying the actual transaction representatives of each party.
The primary evidentiary hurdle was that the Hong Kong applicant only possessed the WeChat IDs of these representatives. In China, data protection and privacy compliance rules dictate that compelling platform operators to provide the real-name registration data behind a WeChat account requires a mandatory legal basis. The applicant was objectively unable to verify the account registration information independently and subsequently filed an application for evidence collection with the tribunal.
The case was administered by the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (Shanghai International Arbitration Center, or SHIAC). Initially, SHIAC issued an “Assistance in Investigation Letter” directly to the relevant internet company holding the registration data. However, the company refused to provide the information, citing the lack of a legal basis for direct investigation and evidence collection by an arbitral tribunal.
Upon review, the arbitral tribunal determined that the requested information constituted key evidence and that the applicant had exhausted all reasonable means to obtain it. Accordingly, the tribunal issued an Interim Measure decision in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules and prevailing practices in international commercial arbitration.
Subsequently, SHIAC submitted an application for the issuance of an investigation order to the Shanghai International Commercial Court via the “Shanghai Courts International Commercial One-Stop Dispute Resolution Platform.”
After its review, the Shanghai International Commercial Court concluded that the requested evidence was necessary for the dispute, and neither the parties nor the tribunal could collect it despite their efforts. Furthermore, the tribunal’s Interim Measure decision which is made in accordance with arbitration rules and international norms reflected the tribunal’s opinion on supporting the party’s request for evidence collection, serving as an important reference for the court. Based on this, the court issued the investigation order pursuant to the Measures of the Shanghai High People’s Court on Issuing Investigation Orders to Assist in Arbitration Investigation and Evidence Collection (Trial), thereby assisting the arbitrating parties in their fact-finding efforts.
II. From Local Rules to National Legislation: The Trajectory of Judicial Support in Arbitral Evidence Collection
The May 2025 case is not an isolated procedural anomaly; rather, it reflects a structural shift in Chinese arbitral and judicial practice, aligning with the framework established by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
Article 27 of the UNCITRAL establishes the principle of “Court assistance in taking evidence,” providing that: “The arbitral tribunal or a party with the approval of the arbitral tribunal may request from a competent court of this State assistance in taking evidence. The court may execute the request within its competence and according to its rules on taking evidence. ” Before the revised PRC Arbitration Law took effect in 2026, Chinese Arbitration Law lacked a direct mechanism for courts to issue investigation orders based on an arbitral tribunal’s request. Judicial support was primarily limited to property and evidence preservation.
The timeline for the evolution of rules regarding judicial support in arbitral evidence collection is as follows:
Local Judicial Regulations
It is worth noting that Shanghai, as an economic hub, pioneered the reform and implementation of related systems well ahead of most regions in China. Prior to the amendment of the revised Arbitration Law, only a few regions, such as Shanghai and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, had promulgated explicit local judicial regulations regarding court assistance in issuing arbitration investigation orders.
In 2023, the Shanghai High People’s Court issued the Shanghai Measures (Trial), which established a specific operational pathway for Arbitral Institutions to apply for investigation orders from Shanghai courts. The 2023 Shanghai Measures Measures set strict prerequisites: they apply to arbitrations seated in Shanghai and administered by domestic Arbitral Institutions or foreign Arbitral Institutions registered in Shanghai; the evidence or the place of collection must be located in Shanghai; the evidence must be relevant to the facts to be proved; neither the parties nor the tribunal can independently collect it; and the application must be submitted by the Arbitral Institution on behalf of the tribunal, rather than directly by the parties.
Similar mechanisms have also been established by the Measures of the Guangdong High People's Court on Issuing Investigation Orders to Assist Commercial Arbitral Institutions in Investigation and Evidence Collection (Trial) (issued June 19, 2025) and the Regulations on the Construction of the Beijing International Commercial Arbitration Center (effective December 1, 2025).
National Legislative Confirmation (Passed in September 2025, Effective March 2026)
The local practices in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangdong align with the trajectory of national legislation. On September 12, 2025, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress passed the revised PRC Arbitration Law, which came into effect on March 1, 2026, providing a national statutory basis for judicial support in arbitral investigation and evidence collection.
Article 55, Paragraph 2 of the revised Arbitration Law explicitly provides: “If the arbitral tribunal considers it necessary to collect evidence, it may collect it on its own; where necessary, it may request the relevant entities to provide assistance according to the law.” The phrase “where necessary, it may request the relevant entities to provide assistance according to the law” is a newly added provision. It provides a direct, nationwide statutory basis for arbitral tribunals to request assistance from relevant entities, including the courts.
Expansion of Local Rules Following the Effective Date of the Revised Arbitration Law
With the new Arbitration Law taking effect on March 1, 2026, the mechanism for judicial support in arbitral evidence collection has further expanded to other regions in China. On March 11, 2026, the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court and the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission jointly issued the Working Guidelines on Issuing Investigation Orders to Assist in Arbitration Investigation and Evidence Collection. On the same day, responding to an application from the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission, the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court issued the city’s first evidence investigation order in a domestic arbitration dispute between Chinese entities.
III. Practical Strategies for China-Related Disputes
1. Design of Dispute Resolution Clauses
When drafting and negotiating China-Related commercial contracts and designing dispute resolution clauses, counsel should establish a basic premise: the choice of arbitral institution and seat should be comprehensively evaluated based on the specifics of the transaction, the geographical distribution of potential key evidence, the registered domicile of the Chinese counterparty, and the location of its primary assets.
For transactions closely tied to Chinese entities or the Chinese market, from the practical perspective of facilitating future domestic evidence collection, property preservation, and award enforcement, selecting an arbitral seat with a robust judicial support mechanism is crucial.
Taking a scenario where the Chinese counterparty or core evidence is located in Shanghai as an example, expressly agreeing in the arbitration clause to an institution that qualifies as a “domestic Arbitral Institution” or a “foreign Arbitral Institution registered in Shanghai,” while simultaneously designating “Shanghai as the seat of arbitration,” will significantly enhance the convenience of subsequent evidence collection. Under this jurisdictional architecture, the case can seamlessly integrate with the mature local judicial support mechanisms. According to current evidence collection regulations in Shanghai, the arbitration case can secure targeted court support.
2. Addressing the Burden of Proof and Review Requirements During Arbitral Proceedings
If a need to collect evidence arises as the arbitration progresses, the application must strictly satisfy the substantive conditions set by both statutory and local procedures. Using the current Shanghai regulations, Article 3 of the Shanghai Measures (Trial)) as an example, when preparing application materials, counsel must demonstrate the following elements to the arbitral tribunal and the competent court:
· Demonstrating relevance and necessity: Clearly explain that the requested evidence has a direct connection to the facts to be proved in the case, that its collection is genuinely necessary, and that it cannot be substituted by other circumstantial evidence.
· Proving an “objective inability to collect independently”: Sufficient evidence must be provided to show that the parties and their counsel have exhausted conventional means of collection and that the tribunal itself faces difficulties in conducting the investigation. “Objective reasons” here primarily refer to situations where the evidence is held by relevant state departments or specific institutions, and neither the parties nor the tribunal has the authority to access or retrieve it. In practice, it is advisable to present the investigation letters sent to third-party institutions alongside their formal refusal replies to objectively demonstrate the evidentiary hurdle.
· Complying with territorial jurisdiction and exclusions: It must be proven that the evidence or the place of collection is located within Shanghai. Simultaneously, special attention must be paid to exclusions; the requested evidence must not involve state secrets, commercial secrets, or personal privacy.
IV. Conclusion: Observations and Outlook
Reflecting on this regulatory evolution from the first local case to the implementation of the new law, my direct observation as a dispute resolution practitioner in China is this: Although numerous international Arbitral Institutions have been established within China, their specific operational mechanisms (such as the linkage between interim measures and judicial support discussed in this article) still, objectively speaking, require further enhancement and refinement at the practical level.
At the same time, however, I am highly encouraged to see that both the revision of the Arbitration Law at the national level and the pioneering rules and practices of local courts are sending a positive and pragmatic signal. Navigating China dispute resolution successfully requires staying ahead of these systemic changes. As international arbitration in China continues to mature, our team remains dedicated to helping global enterprises manage their cross-border commercial disputes. We will keep a close watch on the evolving landscape of China arbitration and Chinese court practices to support the client’s business success in the region.
