Interim remedies or measures are temporary order(s) that a court or arbitral tribunal can issue before or during a dispute resolution process. They are distinct from final remedies, which are usually part of a final judgment, order, or arbitral award that resolves a dispute. The interim remedies aim to safeguard the rights and interests of the parties until the final resolution of the case. On the other hand, they can also be considered stand-alone measures. An anti-suit injunction is one of these measures, which prohibits or restricts the ability of a party to commence or continue legal proceedings in a particular forum. This later measure is not provided by Macau arbitration law. Interim remedies are available in the arbitral proceeding in Macau A new arbitration law was published by Macau on 5 November 2019, Law No. 19/2019, which came into force on 4 May 2020. The new arbitration law replaces Decree-Law 29/96/M (for domestic arbitrations) and Decree-Law 55/98/M (for international commercial arbitrations) with a single law that applies to both domestic and international

This Practice Note considers interim remedies in arbitrations relating to Australia. Interim remedies may be issued by the arbitral tribunal or by a court in support of arbitration proceedings. The need for interim measures may arise in any type of dispute, at different times during the proceedings and may be granted in a number of different forms. Interim remedies may be obtained in different ways in international arbitration proceedings depending on a number of factors, such as the type of interim remedy required and place of enforcement of the interim remedy. For example, it may be necessary to obtain a worldwide freezing order where assets are located in multiple jurisdictions or a freezing order in a country different to the seat of the arbitration because that is where the relevant assets are located. Alternatively, it may be necessary to obtain an anti-suit injunction from a court to prevent court proceedings from going ahead in breach of an arbitration agreement. In this Practice Note we consider the interim remedies that may be granted

This Practice Note considers interim remedies in support of arbitration under Austrian law. Note: The decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) (OGH) referred to below are not reported by LexisNexis®. This Practice Note considers the interim remedies available from the Austrian courts to support arbitration and from arbitral tribunals under Austrian law. Austrian arbitration law forms part of the fourth chapter of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (ACCP). Unlike the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law, Austrian law does not differentiate between domestic and foreign arbitrations. The provisions of the fourth chapter of the ACCP (sections 577 to 618) apply to arbitrations having their seat in Austria, although some of its provisions are applicable regardless of the place of arbitration (ACCP, s 577(2)). Sections 585 and 593 of ACCP are the provisions applicable to interim remedies in arbitration proceedings (the former providing for the issuance of interim measures by state courts and the latter governing interim measures by arbitral tribunals). Note:

The framework for international arbitration in Canada Canada has adopted the 1985 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law (the Model Law). Because Canada is a federation, a different international arbitration statute applies at the federal level and in each province and territory. These statutes either include the Model Law, for example, Ontario’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sch 5 (the ‘International Commercial Arbitration Act 2017’) includes the Model Law as a Schedule, or import its principles. Federally, Canada has not yet adopted the 2006 revisions to the Model Law. Provincially, Ontario and British Columbia are currently the only provinces to have done so as seen respectively in the International Commercial Arbitration Act 2017, at Schedule 2 and the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c 233. Interim measures from arbitral tribunals Article 17 of the Model Law provides that unless the parties agree otherwise, the arbitral tribunal may order such interim measures of protection as it considers

This Practice Note is produced in partnership with Laure-Hélène Gaicio-Fievez, Fabio Trevisan, Javier Garcia-Olmedo, and Francesca Mastragostino at BSP, Luxembourg. The Luxembourg New Code of Civil Procedure ('Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile', or the ‘NCPC’) provides the framework of law that governs arbitration in Luxembourg. Articles 1224–1249 NCPC, which were updated on 19 April 2023, feature a specific body of arbitration law relevant to the expansion of arbitration in Luxembourg. It is a synthesis between the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (UNCITRAL Model Law), the Belgian and the French law as well as the Luxembourg practice. The Law of 19 April 2023 amending Part Two, Book III, Title I of the New Code of Civil Procedure in order to reform arbitration was published in the Mémorial A on April 21, 2023 (hereinafter the New Arbitration ‘Law’). The purpose of the New Arbitration Law was to establish a set of coherent rules known for their effectiveness and accepted as satisfying the requirements and constraints of a useful arbitration procedure. New

Parties to arbitration often require assistance from the court of a given country (or countries) in the form of interim remedies. In Morocco, the Dahir (Royal Decree) 1-22-34 of 23 chaoual 1443 9the December 2022 promulgating the Law n° 95-17 on Arbitration and Mediation Act of 24 May 2022 (the ‘new law’) repealed and replaced the Law No. 08-05 of 30 September 2007 relating to Arbitration Law. In Morocco, the Dahir (Royal Decree) No. 1-07-169 of November 30 2007 promulgating Law No. 08-05 of 30 September 2007 (the ‘new law’) repealed and replaced Chapter VIII of Title V of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to arbitration. The new law is based on the UNCITRAL model law and French law and bestows numerous solutions generated by the case law of the Moroccan Supreme Court in arbitration. It is important to note that there are distinctions in the new law between domestic and international arbitration (see below). The Arbitration and Mediation Act, art 72 relating

Interim remedies in support of arbitration—the legislative regime Arbitration in New Zealand is governed by the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act). The body of the Act contains general provisions. Schedule 1 to the Act contains an adapted form of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law (the Model Law), and Schedule 2 to the Act contains special rules that generally only apply to domestic arbitrations. In 2007, New Zealand was the first country in the world to adopt amendments to the original Model Law proposed by the UNCITRAL 2000 working group that provided for a more comprehensive code for interim measures in support of arbitration. This regime in New Zealand is now found in articles 9 and 17–17M of Schedule 1 to the Act: • article 9 of the Act provides for court-ordered interim measures in support of arbitration; and • articles 17–17M of the Act concern the making of interim measures orders by arbitral tribunals Provision

While arbitration is a private consensual process separate from the court system of any jurisdiction, there are recognised occasions where parties may wish or need to apply to the court for assistance in support of the arbitration. Former arbitration legal framework in Portugal The previous Portuguese Arbitration Law (Law No 31/86 of 29 August 1986) (the Old PAL) did not contain specific provisions regarding preliminary orders or interim measures available to parties during arbitration proceedings or even before initiating such proceedings. However, it was generally understood that the state courts could be called on to grant such measures or orders in support of arbitration. At the same time, there had been a long debate among scholars, commentators and even in case law on the question of whether arbitral tribunals had the power to issue interim measures or preliminary orders. The vast majority of the decisions of the Portuguese superior courts (especially the Lisbon Court of Appeal) took the view that arbitral tribunals could not grant provisional measures, such

For an introduction to arbitration in Qatar, see Practice Note: Arbitration in Qatar—an introduction. Interim relief—the tribunal’s powers to grant interim remedies Qatar Law No. 2/2017 promulgating the Civil and Commercial Arbitration Law (the ‘Qatari Arbitration Law’) governs arbitral tribunals’ ability to issue provisional measures or interim awards. The previous arbitration legislation contained in Articles 190–210 of Qatar Law No. 13/1990 promulgating the Civil and Commercial Procedure Law (CCPL) did not include express provision for arbitral tribunals to issue provisional or conservatory measures or interim awards. However, the Qatari Arbitration Law provides arbitral tribunals with the full authority to issue provisional measures or interim awards that are dictated by the nature of dispute or for the purpose of preventing irreparable harm. Such provisional measures or interim awards include but not limited to the following measures: • maintaining or restoring the status quo pending determination of the dispute • adopting a measure to prevent the occurrence of current or imminent damage, or that would prejudice

Interim relief is, in general, a type of measure aimed at preserving the status quo between parties pending the resolution of their dispute. They could be aimed at preventing the dissipation of assets that are the subject matter of the dispute, or preventing the destruction of evidence, or aimed at any other matter which threatens to affect the outcome and/or effectiveness of the eventual expected decision (eg to be a court proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement). The availability of interim relief is a vital procedural device for preserving the sanctity of arbitral proceedings. Without interim relief, the final arbitral award may well be rendered nugatory and the final relief may be frustrated. In Singapore, both the International Arbitration Act (IAA) and the Arbitration Act (AA) empower Singapore-seated tribunals and Singapore courts to grant interim relief in support of arbitration. Further, both the 2001 AA and the IAA empower parties to exclude or restrict the scope of

Introduction The Spanish legal system allows arbitral tribunals and ordinary courts to adopt interim remedies (‘medidas cautelares’) supporting arbitration proceedings at the applicant’s discretion under sections 23.1 and 11. 3 of the Spanish Arbitration Act 2003 (AA). Usually, the decision is subject to the case circumstances, such as urgency or the need to impose the measures coercively. Therefore, if events cannot wait for the formation of the arbitral tribunal, ordinary jurisdiction is usually the most suitable route to secure the enforcement of interim measures. Furthermore, application to ordinary courts offers the applicant an opportunity to request the court to order the provisional remedy ‘inaudita parte’, ie without notice to the other party. However, applicants should always observe the principle of good faith during the court proceedings; otherwise, ordinary Spanish courts may reject interim measure applications if abuse of rights or procedural dishonesty is revealed (section 247.2 of the Spanish Civil Procedure Rules 2000 (CPR)). Finally, interim remedies must always be issued at the parties’

Interim remedies from the tribunal The Swedish Arbitration Act (SAA) applies to all arbitrations which are seated in Sweden, notwithstanding that the dispute may have an international connection (Section 46 of the SAA). An official translation into English provided on the SCC Arbitration Institute is found here. As provided under Section 25, paragraph 4 of the SAA, interim remedies, which are referred to as 'provisional and conservatory measures', are available in international arbitration proceedings in Sweden. Section 25, paragraph 4 of the SAA provides that, unless the parties have otherwise agreed, the arbitral tribunal may, on motion of one party, order provisional or conservatory measures. The arbitral tribunal may prescribe that the party requesting the interim measure must provide reasonable security for the damages the opposing party may incur as a result of such interim measure. A similar provision concerning the power to order interim measures is found in the 2023 arbitration rules of the SCC Arbitration Institute (the SCC Rules), Section 37. The most important thing to observe is that decisions