Evidence in Chinese Civil Procedure

Evidence under the Civil Procedure Law

The law of evidence in Chinese civil procedure is governed by Book IX of the Civil Procedure Law (Minshi Susong Fa, 民事诉讼法) (Articles 63-81), supplemented by the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings (2019, revised 2022) and the Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedures for Internet Courts (2020). The 2019 revision of the Evidence Provisions introduced significant reforms to electronic evidence, expert conclusions, and document submission deadlines.

Types of Evidence

Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Law recognises eight categories of evidence: (1) documentary evidence (shuzheng); (2) physical evidence (wuzheng); (3) audiovisual materials (shiting ziliao); (4) electronic data (dianzi shuju); (5) witness testimony (zhengren zhengyan); (6) party statements (dangren chenshu); (7) expert conclusions (jianding yijian); and (8) inspection records (kanbi bilu). Electronic data was formally added as a separate category by the 2012 revision, and the 2019 revision of the Evidence Provisions provided detailed rules for its admissibility and authentication.

The categories are non-exhaustive, and courts may consider other forms of evidence subject to the general admissibility requirement of relevance and lawfulness. Evidence obtained through illegal means — including evidence obtained by trespass, by violation of privacy, by entrapment, or by use of torture — is inadmissible.

Burden of Proof

The general rule on burden of proof (juzheng zeren) under Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law is that the party asserting a claim must prove the facts on which the claim is based, and the party asserting a defence must prove the facts on which the defence is based. This corresponds to the civil law principle ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.

The SPC’s Evidence Provisions elaborate the general rule. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the constitutive facts of the cause of action. The defendant bears the burden of proving the affirmative defence. The burden of proof is allocated in accordance with substantive law: the party who bears the burden under the applicable statute must produce evidence on that element.

The court may allocate the burden of proof where the statutory allocation is unclear or where applying the general rule would lead to unfairness. The SPC has held that the court may exercise its discretion to reallocate the burden in cases involving environmental tort, medical malpractice, product liability, and other areas where the plaintiff faces structural disadvantage in accessing evidence.

Burden of Proof Reversal

Burden of proof reversal (juzheng zeren daozhi) is a statutory exception to the general rule, provided in specific categories of cases. The most significant applications are:

Environmental tort (Civil Code Article 1230): The defendant bears the burden of proving the absence of causation between its conduct and the alleged harm. The plaintiff must prove only that the defendant engaged in conduct capable of causing harm and that harm occurred. Medical malpractice (Civil Code Article 1222): The medical institution bears the burden of proving that its conduct complied with applicable standards of care and that the patient’s injury was not caused by the medical institution’s fault. Product liability (Civil Code Article 1202): The manufacturer bears the burden of proving that the product defect did not exist at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control. Securities fraud: Under the SPC’s securities judicial interpretation, the defendant bears the burden of proving the absence of material misrepresentation or insider dealing where the plaintiff has established a prima facie case.

Standard of Proof

The standard of proof in Chinese civil procedure is preponderance of the evidence (gaidu ranxing), formally adopted in the SPC’s 2001 Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings. Article 73 of the 2001 Provisions provides that where the evidence of one party is “clearly more probable” than that of the opposing party, the court shall uphold the more probable version.

The 2019 revision of the Evidence Provisions refined the standard. Article 86 provides that the standard of proof may be reduced in certain categories of cases, including claims for injunctive relief, preservation applications, and exigent circumstances. The reduced standard requires the party to establish a “higher degree of possibility” (jiaoda kenengxing) rather than the preponderance standard.

The SPC has distinguished the civil standard from the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt), holding that the civil standard requires the court to determine which party’s factual version is more probable on the balance of the evidence, without the benefit of the presumption of innocence that applies in criminal proceedings.

Evidence Preservation

Evidence preservation (zhengju baocun) under Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Law allows a party to apply to the court for preservation of evidence before or during proceedings where the evidence may be destroyed or lost or become difficult to obtain. The court may order preservation by: (1) sealing or impounding the evidence; (2) copying, photographing, or audio-recording the evidence; (3) obtaining the evidence through compulsory measures; or (4) other means.

The applicant for preservation must provide a prima facie showing that the evidence exists, that it is relevant to the proceedings, and that there is a risk of destruction or loss. The court may require the applicant to provide security (danbao) to compensate the opposing party for losses caused by wrongful preservation.

The pre-litigation evidence preservation procedure was introduced by the 2012 revision and permits a party to apply for preservation before filing the lawsuit in cases of urgency. The applicant must file the lawsuit within 30 days of the preservation order.

Expert Conclusions

Expert conclusions (jianding yijian) are a distinct category of evidence under Chinese civil procedure. Experts are appointed by the court rather than by the parties, though parties may recommend experts to the court. The appointed expert must be registered on the court’s expert database and must be independent of the parties.

The expert’s conclusion must be in writing and must specify the materials on which it is based, the methodology employed, and the reasoning supporting the conclusion. The expert must appear before the court for questioning unless excused for good cause. The parties may challenge the expert conclusion by presenting countervailing expert opinions or by demonstrating procedural irregularity in the expert’s appointment or methodology.

Document Submission Deadlines

Document submission deadlines (juzheng shixian) are strictly enforced under the 2019 Evidence Provisions. The general deadline for document submission is the date of the first court hearing. The court may extend the deadline at the parties’ request where the failure to meet the deadline was for good cause.

Evidence submitted after the deadline is not admissible unless: (1) the delay was caused by force majeure or other circumstances not attributable to the party; (2) the evidence could not reasonably have been obtained before the deadline; or (3) the opposing party consents to late submission. The court may permit late submission where the evidence is essential to the court’s determination of the case.

Conclusion

Chinese civil procedure evidence law has evolved from a civil law tradition of discretionary judicial evidence assessment to a more structured framework with clear burden of proof allocation, statutory burden reversal in specified categories, a preponderance standard of proof, and regulated document submission timelines. The 2019 Evidence Provisions modernised the regime, particularly for electronic evidence, and aligned Chinese practice more closely with international civil procedure standards.