Meaning
A procedural rule in civil litigation where a court presumes a fact to be true because a party refuses to produce evidence within its control. In Chinese IP and commercial disputes, the Supreme People’s Court rules on civil procedure allow the application of adverse judicial inference against a party that fails to submit court-ordered documents. This shifting of proof burdens typically occurs when a plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant holds the required production or design records.
Procedural Trigger
A procedural trigger for this presumption arises when the moving party establishes a prima facie case with existing records. When a foreign manufacturer presents sufficient initial evidence that a domestic counterparty holds exclusive possession of assembly records, the tribunal issues a formal disclosure order. Non-compliance without a valid justification leads the court to accept the claimant’s version of the facts.
This mechanism forces disclosure in complex trade secret or technical licensing disputes.
Statutory Application
Article 95 of the Supreme People’s Court judicial interpretation dictates the boundary of this judicial action. It applies when a party deliberately destroys files or blocks their retrieval.
Enforcement Variance
Local courts frequently diverge in how they apply this doctrine compared to national guidelines. In many maritime or intellectual property courts, judges demand high standards of initial proof before shifting the burden of persuasion. Some provincial courts hesitate to apply the measure because they prefer to rely on direct investigations.
