Can Courts Grant Interim Relief In International Arbitration?

In international arbitration, parties often face urgent situations—like potential destruction of evidence or transfer of assets—before or during proceedings. While arbitral tribunals can issue interim measures, their formation takes time. Therefore, parties often turn to national courts for immediate interim relief. Courts in many jurisdictions are empowered to support arbitration by issuing such relief, even if the arbitration is seated in another country. This judicial assistance helps protect the effectiveness and fairness of international arbitration.

Court’s Role in Granting Interim Relief in International Arbitration

1. Legal Authority of Courts

Courts in arbitration-friendly jurisdictions are legally empowered to:

Grant injunctions, asset freezes, and evidence preservation orders.

Assist with interim measures before the arbitral tribunal is constituted.

Enforce or complement interim relief granted by the arbitral tribunal.

2. UNCITRAL Model Law (Article 9 & 17J)

The UNCITRAL Model Law, adopted in many countries, explicitly allows courts to grant interim measures in support of arbitration, regardless of whether the arbitration is seated in that jurisdiction.

It emphasizes non-interference with arbitral autonomy while allowing courts to act when necessary.

3. Timing of Relief

Courts may provide interim relief:

Before arbitration begins (pre-tribunal formation)

During proceedings, especially if the tribunal lacks enforcement power

In support of foreign-seated arbitration, depending on national laws

4. Types of Relief Courts Can Grant

Freezing orders (Mareva injunctions): to prevent asset dissipation

Anti-suit injunctions: to stop parallel litigation in other courts

Preservation of evidence or property

Restraining orders: against certain actions

5. Jurisdictional Variations

Different countries have different approaches:

United Kingdom: Courts actively support international arbitration with broad powers under the Arbitration Act 1996.

India: Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Indian courts can grant interim relief even for foreign-seated arbitration.

Singapore: The International Arbitration Act allows interim relief for international arbitration cases.

USA: Courts may issue interim orders but are cautious, depending on federal arbitration law and the FAA.

6. Limitations and Considerations

Courts do not decide the merits of the dispute.

The party seeking relief must show urgency, irreparable harm, and a prima facie case.

Courts ensure that interim relief supports, not replaces, the arbitral process.

7. Enforcement of Tribunal-Issued Interim Measures

In some cases, a tribunal may issue an interim order, but it lacks direct enforcement power. A national court may then be asked to recognize and enforce it, especially in jurisdictions aligned with UNCITRAL or similar principles.

Example

Scenario:

A German company and a Brazilian manufacturer are in an international commercial dispute governed by ICC arbitration seated in Paris. The German company learns the manufacturer is about to transfer key assets out of Brazil, which could frustrate any future award.

Steps Taken:

The German company applies to a Brazilian court for a freezing order under Brazilian arbitration law.

The court finds sufficient urgency and risk of asset dissipation and grants the relief.

The arbitration continues in Paris without interference, while the assets in Brazil remain secured.

Later, the arbitral tribunal issues its final award, and enforcement becomes possible without fear of asset loss.

Key Takeaway:

Courts can act as guardians of fairness and enforceability in international arbitration by providing timely and necessary interim relief—especially when arbitral tribunals lack power or immediacy.