CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Peibing Qi, Na Gao and Shanshan Heng, Fangda Partners
as an example, the amount of compensation is typi- cally calculated based on the investors’ actual losses, including the loss from the difference in investment value, commissions, stamp duty and related expens- es. 7.4 Class Actions, Mass Claims and Arbitration In China, class actions and mass claims are uncom- mon in commercial arbitration. This is primarily because arbitration is based on a voluntary arbitra- tion agreement between the parties, whereas mass claims typically involve a large number of unascertain- able potential litigants, making it difficult to include all such potential litigants in the arbitral process through a pre-existing arbitration agreement. In China, collective labour arbitration is more com- mon. 7.5 Trends The Normalisation of Representative Actions in Securities Disputes In 2025, three special representative actions were initi- ated in the securities field, namely, Misho Ecology, Jin Tong Ling and Jinzhou Port, bringing the cumulative total of special representative actions in China to five. Additionally, multiple ordinary representative actions were newly filed in 2025, including those involving Huatie, Tunghsu Optoelectronic, Topcare and East Group. The Expansion of Representative Actions From the Financial and Securities Field to Other Areas Such as Consumer Rights Protection In 2025, courts across China explored pathways for resolving mass consumer disputes through represent- ative actions, efficiently resolving numerous disputes involving prepaid consumer rights protection.
tions provide for a system of orders to produce docu- mentary evidence. That is, a party may apply to the court or arbitral tribunal to produce documentary evi- dence, and the adjudicative body may issue a ruling or order requiring the opposing party to submit the relevant documentary evidence. The opposing party has a duty to submit such evidence; refusal to do so may result in adverse factual findings against the non- compliant party. Parameters of the Duty of Disclosure The scope of documentary evidence that a party may be requested to disclose is limited to documents that are actually controlled by the party and are relevant and material to the facts to be proven and the out- come of the case. Practice In practice, the actual application of this tool is very limited, typically occurring only occasionally in for- eign-related arbitration cases administered by Chi- nese arbitration institutions. In litigation proceedings, courts generally require par- ties to submit documentary evidence based on the inquisitorial system. While a refusal to submit evidence may affect the judge’s inner conviction, it is less com- mon for the court to directly draw adverse inferences regarding the facts asserted by the opposing party. 8.2 Privilege PRC law does not expressly provide for a system of evidentiary privilege. Communications between a par- ty and their attorney are not statutorily exempt from the disclosure of documentary evidence. The arbitration rules of mainstream arbitration insti- tutions do address these matters. For example, the CIETAC Guidelines on Evidence provide that a request for the production of documents may be dismissed if the production “may result in violation of the applica- ble laws or professional ethics”. There are no further detailed rules on this matter. 8.3 Confidentiality PRC law does not expressly provide for the exemp- tion of confidential evidence from the disclosure of documentary evidence.
8. Evidence 8.1 Disclosure Production of Documentary Evidence
PRC law has incorporated discovery rules from com- mon law systems. Both the Civil Procedure Law and the arbitration rules of mainstream arbitration institu -
112 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook