Title 9.3. Arbitration and Conciliation of International Commercial Disputes · Chapter 4. Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunals · Article 2. Interim Measures Ordered by Arbitral Tribunals · Last amended 2025 · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceSection 1297.172 requires a party seeking most interim measures to show that irreparable-enough harm outweighs the harm to the other side and that there is a reasonable possibility of success on the merits, though those requirements apply to an evidence-preservation measure only to the extent the tribunal considers appropriate.
(a)The party requesting an interim measure under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 1297.171 shall satisfy the arbitral tribunal that both of the following conditions are met:
(1)Harm not adequately reparable by an award of damages is likely to result if the measure is not ordered, and such harm substantially outweighs the harm that is likely to result to the party against whom the measure is directed if the measure is granted.
(2)There is a reasonable possibility that the requesting party will succeed on the merits of the claim. The determination of this possibility shall not affect the discretion of the arbitral tribunal in making any subsequent determination.
(b)With regard to a request for an interim measure under paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 1297.171, the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) shall apply only to the extent the arbitral tribunal considers appropriate.
Plain-English Summary
Granting interim relief means restraining or directing a party before the dispute is finally decided, so this section sets the standard the requesting party has to meet for the status-quo, process-protection, and asset-preservation measures Section 1297.171 describes. Two things have to be shown. First, that harm not adequately fixed by a later damages award is likely if the measure is not ordered, and that this harm clearly outweighs the harm the other side would suffer if the measure is granted. Second, that there is a reasonable possibility the requesting party will succeed on the merits of its claim -- though the tribunal's assessment of that possibility at this stage does not bind whatever it decides later.
Evidence-preservation measures get a lighter touch. Those same two requirements apply to a request to preserve evidence only to the extent the tribunal considers appropriate, giving the tribunal room to order evidence preserved without demanding the same showing of likely success or comparative harm that the other three categories require.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must a party show to get most interim measures granted?
That irreparable-enough harm is likely without the measure and outweighs the harm to the other side, and that there is a reasonable possibility of success on the merits.
Does the tribunal's view of likely success at this stage decide the final case?
No -- the determination of that possibility does not affect the tribunal's discretion in any later determination.
Do these requirements apply the same way to a request to preserve evidence?
No -- for evidence-preservation measures, the requirements apply only to the extent the tribunal considers appropriate.
Amendment History
Amended by Stats 2024 ch 90 (AB 1903),s 10, eff. 1/1/2025. Added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 23, Sec. 1. Effective March 7, 1988.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 29, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:standard for interim measures arbitration californiairreparable harm test arbitral tribunal