In our experience, Vietnamese court has relied on one or more of the following grounds to cancel domestic arbitration awards or reject application for recognition of foreign arbitral awards:

· Changes to the venue of hearing to a different location than the place of arbitration. In a VIAC proceeding, the Claimant initiated two claims against two arbitrators for a breach of conduct. As a result, to protect the safety of the two arbitrators, the Tribunal decided to change the venue of hearing from Hanoi to Singapore and then Japan. However, Vietnamese court decided to set aside the awards on the ground that the arbitration does not take place in Hanoi as required by the arbitration agreement;

· Applying IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration in a VIAC proceeding without express agreement by the parties;

· Using valuation result by expert appointed one of the parties in a VIAC proceeding when there is disagreement by the parties on valuation of damages;

· Failure to apply Vietnamese law to a non-contractual claim in a SIAC proceeding;

· Violation of hearing rules (e.g., blocking camera with backdrop, not providing all attendants with access to hearing bundles.) in a SIAC proceeding; and

· The expert appointed by a party gives an expert opinion beyond the scope of the questions raised by the requesting party in a SIAC proceeding.

This post is written by Nguyen Quang Vu and Ha Kieu Anh.

Update 27 May 2023: In a recent court decision considering a request for recognition of a SIAC award, the appeal court has accepted that SIAC has jurisdiction over a non-contractual claim despite objection from the respondent. However, the appear court still rejects the request for recognition on the ground that the tribunal has applied Singapore law instead of Vietnamese law when considering the dispute.

Vietnam Business Law