Foreign parties routinely lose good claims in China for a reason that has nothing to do with the merits: they waited. The limitation regime under the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (adopted 28 May 2020, in force 1 January 2021) is shorter than many common-law practitioners expect, and its starting point is not always the date you would assume.

The basic period: three years

Article 188 provides that the limitation period for a claim to protection of a civil right before a people’s court is three years, unless otherwise provided by law.

The period runs from the date on which the right holder knew or ought to have known both (a) that the right had been infringed and (b) the identity of the obligor.

That two-limb starting point matters. In a supply dispute where defective goods only manifest a fault two years after delivery, the clock may start late. In an infringement case where the infringer is initially unidentifiable, the clock may not start until the infringer can be identified.

Article 188 also imposes an outer limit: no protection after twenty years from the date the right was infringed, regardless of knowledge — extendable only by a people’s court, on application, in special circumstances.

Where the period is different

Three years is the general rule, not a universal one. Other periods are fixed by specific legislation, including in international sale of goods, carriage and maritime matters. Where your contract has a foreign element, check whether a specialised statute displaces Article 188 before assuming three years.

Verification note. Special limitation periods are scattered across sector-specific statutes. Do not assume Article 188 applies to a maritime, insurance or carriage claim without checking the governing instrument for that sector.

The rule practitioners most often miss: the court will not raise it

Article 193 is unambiguous: a people’s court shall not apply the limitation period of its own motion.

Limitation in China is a defence, not a jurisdictional bar. If the defendant does not plead it, the court will not save the defendant. Under Article 192, once the period has expired the obligor may raise a defence of non-performance — and if the obligor nonetheless performs voluntarily after expiry, it cannot later demand the money back on the ground that the claim was time-barred.

Two practical consequences:

  • For claimants: an apparently time-barred claim is not automatically worthless. It is worth assessing whether the defendant is likely to plead the point, and whether any conduct has restarted the clock.
  • For defendants: limitation must be pleaded, clearly and in time. Failing to raise it is not curable later by arguing the court should have noticed.

Interruption: the clock can restart

Under Article 195, the limitation period is interrupted — and starts running afresh from zero — where:

  1. the right holder makes a demand for performance on the obligor;
  2. the obligor agrees to perform;
  3. the right holder institutes proceedings or applies for arbitration; or
  4. any other circumstance having the same effect as institution of proceedings occurs.

This is the most useful tool available to a creditor who cannot yet litigate. A properly documented written demand — sent to a verifiable address, with proof of dispatch and receipt retained — restarts three full years. So does a signed acknowledgment of the debt, a partial payment, or a repayment plan.

The evidential point is the whole point. A demand that cannot be proved to have reached the obligor is worth nothing when the defence is pleaded three years later. In practice this means: written form, traceable courier or registered post to the address on the company’s registration record, and a retained file copy with the dispatch receipt.

Suspension: the clock can pause

Article 194 provides for suspension in the final six months of the period where the right holder is prevented from exercising the claim by force majeure, incapacity without a legal representative, succession or estate issues, control by the obligor or another person, or other obstacles. The period resumes and completes six months after the obstacle is removed.

Suspension is narrower than interruption and applies only in the closing six months. It is a safety net, not a strategy.

Claims the limitation period does not touch

Article 196 excludes certain claims from the limitation regime entirely, including:

  • claims to stop an infringement, remove an obstruction or eliminate a danger;
  • claims by a holder of a registered real property right, or of a movable property right, for return of the property;
  • claims for payment of maintenance, support or child support.

This matters in property and IP disputes: an injunction-type claim to stop ongoing infringement does not expire in the same way a damages claim does, even though the two are often pleaded together.

Practical checklist for a foreign claimant

  1. Date the trigger precisely. Identify the day you knew, or should have known, of both the infringement and the obligor. Document how you know.
  2. Diary at 30 months, not 36. Chinese litigation requires notarised and legalised corporate documents, certified translations and often a locally executed power of attorney. Assembling that pack takes weeks. A filing deadline reached with the documents still in transit is a deadline missed.
  3. Send demands in writing and prove delivery. Use the registered address from the counterparty’s public registration record. Keep dispatch and receipt evidence.
  4. Capture any acknowledgment. A partial payment, a reconciliation statement signed by the counterparty, or an email agreeing a payment schedule can each restart the period. Get it in writing and keep it.
  5. Separate your claims. An injunctive claim and a damages claim have different exposure to limitation. Pleading them together does not merge their treatment.

The underlying point

Chinese limitation law is not unusually harsh. What catches foreign parties out is the combination of a short period, a knowledge-based starting point, and the practical lead time required to file in a Chinese court from abroad. The defence is procedural discipline: date the claim, diary it early, demand in writing, and keep the proof.

Instruments referred to in this article: Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (in force 1 January 2021), Articles 188, 192, 193, 194, 195 and 196.