You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

August 19, 2013

The International Comparative Legal Guide to: International Arbitration 2013 – Vietnam Chapter

Subscribe to Updates
Global Legal Group

The International Comparative Legal Guide has published the 10th edition of International Arbitration, a Q&A-style guide that provides cross-border insight into arbitration work across 53 jurisdictions. Michael K. Lee and Doan Ngoc Tran, partner and associate in the Tilleke & Gibbins corporate and commercial group, have jointly authored this year’s chapter on arbitration in Vietnam.

This chapter covers the following topics:

  • Arbitration Agreements: Requirements under the Law on Commercial Arbitration of Vietnam 2010 and enforcement of arbitration agreements by national courts
  • Governing Legislation: Main statutes, differences between domestic and international arbitration proceedings, UNCITRAL Model Law, and mandatory rules governing international arbitration
  • Jurisdiction: Arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction, parties that commence proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement, jurisdiction over individuals not party to an agreement to arbitrate, limitation periods, and effect of pending insolvency proceedings
  • Choice of Law Rules: Determining applicable law, prevailing mandatory laws, and law rules governing formation, validity, and legality of arbitration agreements
  • Selection of Arbitral Tribunal: Limits on parties’ autonomy to select arbitrators, default selection procedures, court intervention in arbitrator selection, and requirements for arbitrator independence, neutrality, and/or impartiality
  • Procedural Rules: Laws governing arbitration procedures, procedural steps, arbitration hearing rules, arbitrator powers and duties, restrictions on foreign lawyers, arbitrator immunity, and national courts’ jurisdiction on procedural issues
  • Preliminary Relief and Interim Measures: Arbitrators’ and courts’ capabilities to award relief, anti-suit injunctions, and security for costs
  • Evidentiary Matters: Rules of evidence, scope of arbitrator’s authority with regard to disclosure, courts’ intervention in disclosure/discovery matters, rules relating to testimony, and scope of privilege
  • Making an Award: Legal requirements
  • Challenge of an Award: Grounds, excluding appeals or challenges, expanding scope of appeal, and procedures
  • Enforcement of an Award: New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, regional Conventions, steps to take by the parties, res judicata, and refusing enforcement on grounds of public policy
  • Confidentiality: Unprotected proceedings, governing laws, and information disclosed in arbitral proceedings referred to in subsequent proceedings
  • Remedies/Interests/Costs: Types of remedies and interest available, interest rates, recovering fees and/or costs, shifting fees and costs, taxes, and lawyers’ fees
  • Investor State Arbitrations: Bilateral Investment Treaties and multi-party investment treaties, noteworthy language in investment treaties, and state immunity defense
  • General: Trends and addressing current issues in arbitration

This article appears in the 2013 edition of The International Comparative Legal Guide to: International Arbitration, published by Global Legal Group Ltd., London. www.iclg.co.uk

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More
December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
Read More
December 12, 2025
Similar to other types of corporate disputes, tax-related conflicts often begin with an earnest attempt to resolve matters outside the courtroom. The prospect of engaging in tax litigation can be daunting, given the potential strain on commercial relationships, the legal expenses, and the uncertainty surrounding its resolution. However, there are instances when tax litigation becomes the sole avenue for seeking redress. For individuals and entities contemplating the pursuit of tax-related legal remedies, the Thai legal system offers an accessible, impartial, and equitable platform for dispute resolution. Tilleke & Gibbins’ latest update to Tax Litigation in Thailand provides an outline for navigating tax-related disputes within the Thai legal framework. It aims to equip readers with a fundamental understanding of procedures and practices within the Thai tax litigation landscape. The full guide is available through the button below.
Read More
December 12, 2025
Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act. Thailand’s Overall Approach Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law. Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds. Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion. In practical
Read More