Decision On 27 June 2017, Justice Mimmie Chan ruled that, "[h]aving considered the entire circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the appointment of receivers to exercise the voting and other rights in the [pledged] Shares is an interim order that may be granted by the court in Hong Kong in relation to arbitral proceedings. Bearing in mind that the [pledged] Shares are of a company in Hong Kong, the interim appointment of receivers of such [pledged] Shares will facilitate the process of the arbitral tribunal or the Mainland court that has primary jurisdiction over the Arbitration, and it is just for the court to grant such an interim order to maintain and preserve the status quo." In relation to the argument that the relief should have been sought from the arbitral tribunal or the PRC Court, Justice Mimmie Chan cited s.45 of the Arbitration Ordinance, which she said made clear that the Hong Kong courts had both the jurisdiction and the power to grant interim measures in relation to "any arbitral proceedings which have been, or are to be, commenced outside Hong Kong". She specifically addressed the Defendants' argument that the Hong Kong court might "[usurp] the jurisdiction of the Mainland court" by recognising that the CIETAC tribunal had primary jurisdiction over the substantive dispute (and that the Mainland court had supervisory jurisdiction over those proceedings), but that the powers of the Hong Kong court existed "ancillary to the arbitral proceedings outside Hong Kong, and… for the purpose of facilitating the process". In the present case, the fact that CSI was a Hong Kong company made Hong Kong the appropriate forum in which to seek the intended interim relief. With regard to the argument that receivership is a drastic and draconian form of relief, the court concluded that putting the shares in the hands of receivers would be the best manner of preserving the value of the shares and, as such, would be in the interests of the beneficial owners. Amongst other things, Justice Mimmie Chan considered that CSI was an investment holding company, whose sole function was to hold shares in other entities, such that any adverse impact would be far less than in the case of a company with active business interests. Under the circumstances, the court trusted that the receivers, acting independently and under the supervision of the court, would be in the best position to preserve the value of the shares. In making this order, Justice Mimmie Chan also nullified documents executed by the Defendants which purported to transfer the shares to a third party. In doing so, she relied upon article 17 of the Model Law (incorporated as s.35 of the Arbitration Ordinance) which empowers the court to grant an order to "maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute." In the circumstance of the present case, Justice Mimmie Chan concluded that the position existing immediately before the commencement of the arbitration reflected the status quo, such that any share transfer documents signed after that date would cease to have effect pending the resolution of the dispute. Comment The power of the Hong Kong court to grant interim relief in support of foreign arbitral proceedings is well established. As the present case illustrates, this can be a powerful tool for parties seeking to preserve assets, evidence or the status quo pending the outcome of arbitral proceedings. It is particularly noteworthy in the context of China-related disputes, given the relatively limited preservation measures available from the Mainland courts.