Interim measures: tribunals, courts and emergency relief

Identify what needs protection

An interim measure temporarily protects the parties’ position before the dispute is finally determined. One application may preserve assets for eventual recovery, another prevent continuing harm, and a third preserve evidence. These objectives are connected but not interchangeable: an asset restraint does not secure access to a document, while preserving a document does not itself compel its production.

Article 17(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985/2006 covers maintaining or restoring the status quo, preventing harm and prejudice to the process, preserving assets, and preserving material evidence. This is a model for domestic legislation. Its publication does not give every arbitrator in every jurisdiction identical powers.

Applying to the arbitral tribunal

Begin with jurisdiction, the parties’ agreement, the rules and the law of the seat. Under the Article 17 model, the power operates unless the parties agree otherwise. Article 17A links the first three categories to harm not adequately reparable through damages, a balance of likely harm, and a reasonable possibility of success. That preliminary assessment does not determine the ultimate merits.

For preservation of evidence, Article 17A(2) applies these requirements only to the extent the tribunal considers appropriate. Articles 17D–17G separately address modification and termination, security, disclosure of changed circumstances and liability for unjustified relief. Urgency therefore does not excuse an imprecise account of the threatened harm or the effect on the opposing party.

State courts and coercive powers

Under the Article 9 model, seeking court interim relief before or during arbitration is compatible with the arbitration agreement. Article 17J provides for court measures supporting arbitration, including foreign-seated proceedings, through the court’s own procedures. An actual application must establish domestic implementation, jurisdiction, the relevant territorial connection and the requirements for the requested order.

Court assistance is particularly significant where state coercion or persons outside the arbitration agreement are involved. Nevertheless, the presence of an asset does not justify every requested restraint. Identify the court’s specific authority and a workable form of relief. Coordinate parallel applications and disclose existing measures to avoid incompatible judicial and arbitral directions.

Emergency arbitration is a specific agreed mechanism

An emergency arbitrator may address urgent relief before the main tribunal is constituted if the applicable rules provide that mechanism and cover the agreement and parties. It is not a compulsory step in every arbitration or an automatic feature of ad hoc proceedings. Appointment deadlines, powers, the form of the decision and later review depend on the particular rulebook and applicable law.

For example, the ICC Rules 2026, effective from 1 June 2026, address emergency arbitrators in Article 31 and Appendix IV. Relief takes the form of an order; the main tribunal may modify, terminate or annul it. Appendix IV Article 9 preserves the specified avenue to national courts. These provisions cannot simply be transferred to another institution or an earlier ICC edition.

Without-notice applications and subsequent participation

An application without prior notice requires its own legal basis. Model Law Articles 17B–17C distinguish an interim measure from a preliminary order preventing frustration of its purpose. In that model, the preliminary order expires after twenty days, is not an award and is not itself subject to court enforcement. Prompt notification and an opportunity to present a case are required.

Do not conflate that statutory model with a preliminary direction by an emergency arbitrator under particular institutional rules. Each requires attention to its source and subsequent procedural safeguards. CBS v CBP concerns a final award and witness evidence, rather than interim relief. It illustrates meaningful participation but does not supply a special test for every urgent application.

Evidence collection and enforcement of a measure

Model Law Article 27 addresses court assistance in taking evidence, a different task from Article 17 preservation. An existing document may require production; a disappearing object may require immediate preservation; a bank account may require asset protection. Russian institutional/ad hoc distinctions are explained in the evidence-assistance guide and should not automatically be imported into foreign proceedings.

Articles 17H–17I propose a particular recognition and enforcement framework, including limited refusal grounds and protection of third parties. Check whether the enforcement country enacted that framework and whether it covers the particular instrument. An arbitrator’s order should not be promised Convention enforcement merely because an arbitrator issued it.

Preparing a focused application

A working assessment covers the agreement and applicable rules edition, juridical seat, specific risk, protected object, urgency, evidence, proportionality, possible security and third-party effects. Identify the decision-maker, notice procedure, duration and practical enforcement route. Record separately when changed circumstances could require modification or termination.

The UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings, Note 8, suggest addressing powers, conditions, enforcement and potential conflicts between judicial and arbitral measures. They provide useful organisational guidance rather than mandatory powers. The final assessment must return to domestic legislation and the parties’ agreement.

English reform: emergency arbitrators and judicial coercion

Sections 8–9 of the Arbitration Act 2025 illustrate a national mechanism. Where agreed rules provide for an emergency arbitrator and one is appointed, section 41A permits a peremptory order with a compliance deadline after failure to comply without sufficient cause, unless otherwise agreed. Section 42 extends judicial assistance to such orders subject to its conditions. This does not automatically turn every emergency order into an enforceable award.

Section 44 separately addresses the court’s own measures: non-urgent applications require tribunal or emergency-arbitrator permission, or the other parties’ written agreement, with notice. The amendment expressly covers third parties without making them parties to the arbitration agreement. Territorial scope, section 44 conditions and section 17(4) transition still matter; the principal amendments commenced on 1 August 2025.

Russia: court relief is also available for ad hoc arbitration

Russian tribunal powers are governed by Law 382-FZ Article 17 and Law 5338-I Article 17. Unless otherwise agreed, a tribunal may, at a party’s request, order necessary interim measures concerning the subject matter and require appropriate security. Russian Article 17 does not reproduce the entire 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law regime in Articles 17A–17J; the model’s provisions are not automatically Russian law.

Under paragraph 36 of Supreme Court Plenum Resolution 53, a state court may grant interim relief in support of arbitration seated in Russia or abroad. The restriction on the special evidence-obtaining request for ad hoc proceedings does not apply here: an ad hoc party may also seek judicial relief if the general requirements are satisfied. Court applications are compatible with the arbitration agreement under Article 9 of both Russian statutes.

An arbitral interim order is to be complied with by the parties, but Russia does not issue a writ for it under the procedure for enforcing final arbitral awards. State coercion requires the competent court to grant its own interim measure. An existing tribunal order does not bar that application; the court independently examines the grounds and proportionality under paragraph 36 of Plenum Resolution 53.

What the Russian court examines on an urgent application

For a commercial dispute, Article 90(2)–(3) of the Commercial Procedure Code requires a demonstrated risk that enforcement will become difficult or impossible, or the need to prevent substantial loss. An arbitration party may apply at the tribunal’s location, the debtor’s address or residence, or the location of its assets. Article 92 requires the specific measure, subject matter, claim amount, justification and attachments; paragraph 5 separately addresses the accepted arbitral claim and arbitration agreement.

In civil proceedings, Civil Procedure Code Article 139 permits an arbitration party to seek court protection at the tribunal’s location, the debtor’s residence or address, or the location of its assets. The measure and proportionality are assessed under Article 140. In addition to risk and the connection with the claim, paragraph 36 of Plenum Resolution 53 requires examination of the agreement’s validity and enforceability and the dispute’s arbitrability. A request to freeze all assets without an amount, connection to the claim and evidence of risk is not a substitute for that showing.