Setting Aside Arbitral Awards in Vietnam

The principle of finality and the sole exception

Clause 5, Article 4 and Clause 5, Article 61 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010 establish that an arbitral award is final and binding and takes effect from the date of issuance — there is no appellate procedure, and no party has the right to “appeal” for a higher level to review the entire case.

The sole exception is the procedure for setting aside the award at court under Articles 68–71. This is not a “disguised appellate level” but a limited judicial supervision mechanism: the court only examines whether the award violates one of the grounds for setting aside listed by law, and does not reassess whether the arbitral tribunal was right or wrong on the merits.

Five grounds for setting aside and the burden of proof

Clause 2, Article 68 lists the exhaustive grounds on which an arbitral award may be set aside — the court may not create additional grounds beyond this list:

a) There is no arbitration agreement or the arbitration agreement is invalid. This is a ground concerning the foundation of jurisdiction: if no valid arbitration agreement existed from the outset, the arbitral tribunal had no authority to resolve the dispute, and the award has no basis to stand. Cases of invalid arbitration agreements are provided in Article 18 (breach of authority, lack of authority of the signatory, improper form, etc.).

b) The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration proceedings are not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or are contrary to the provisions of this Law. This ground protects the parties’ autonomy over procedure: for example, where the parties agreed on a three-member tribunal but in fact only one person decided the case, or the proceedings breached mandatory provisions of the Law (such as the right to present one’s case and the parties’ equality).

c) The dispute falls outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. For example, a dispute beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, or a type of dispute that the law does not permit to be resolved by arbitration. The Law provides flexibility: where an award contains content outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction, only that content is set aside — the remainder of the award remains effective (partial setting aside).

d) Evidence on which the arbitral tribunal relied to issue the award is forged; an arbitrator received money, assets, or other material benefits from a disputing party affecting the objectivity and fairness of the award. This is a ground concerning the integrity of the proceedings — the petitioning party must prove specific acts of fraud or corruption, not mere suspicion.

e) The arbitral award is contrary to the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law. This is the ultimate “safety valve” protecting public policy — and also the ground most debated as to its scope of application; courts usually apply it very cautiously so as not to turn it into a tool for re-examining the merits of awards.

As to the burden of proof, Clause 3, Article 68 allocates it clearly: for the grounds at points a, b, c, and d, the petitioning party must prove its case — the court has no duty to find evidence on its behalf. Only for ground dd (contrary to the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law) does the court proactively verify and collect evidence, because public policy concerns the common interests of society — the state proactively protects it rather than depending entirely on the petitioning party’s ability to prove.

The 30-day deadline and the petition dossier

Article 69 provides: within 30 days from the date of receipt of the arbitral award, if a party has sufficient grounds to prove that the award falls into one of the cases in Clause 2, Article 68, it has the right to file a petition with the competent court requesting that the award be set aside, together with documents and evidence in support. This deadline is strict; the only relaxation is where the delay results from a force majeure event, in which case that period is not counted toward the deadline (Clause 2, Article 69) — but proving force majeure is very difficult in practice, so businesses should treat the 30 days as an absolute deadline. Note that the starting point is the “date of receipt of the award,” not the date of issuance.

Under Article 70, the petition must contain: the date of the petition; the name and address of the petitioning party; the request and grounds for setting aside the award — specifying which of the five grounds in Clause 2, Article 68 the award falls into, with specific analysis; a generic statement that “the award is unfair” is not enough. Attached to the petition must be the original or a duly certified copy of the award and the arbitration agreement; documents in a foreign language must be translated into Vietnamese and the translation certified.

Which court has jurisdiction to hear a setting-aside petition?

Under point g, Clause 2, Article 7, the competent court is the court of the place where the arbitral tribunal rendered the award — i.e., the court at the seat of the arbitration. As to the court level, Clause 3, Article 7 (as amended by Law 81/2025/QH15, effective 01/7/2025) provides that jurisdiction belongs to certain provincial-level People’s Courts whose territorial jurisdiction is prescribed by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly — higher than the regional-level People’s Courts applicable to other arbitration-support requests, reflecting the special nature of setting aside a final and binding award.

Note the distinction: Law 81/2025/QH15 is a law amending and supplementing certain articles of the Law on the Organization of People’s Courts — not a new arbitration law. Do not confuse it with Resolution 81/2025/UBTVQH15 of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on the establishment of provincial-level People’s Courts and regional People’s Courts — that is an organizational document on the court apparatus, even though it shares the number 81/2025 and the same effective date of 01/7/2025.

Court procedure for hearing the petition and the no-merits-review principle

Under Article 71, after accepting the case, the court immediately notifies the arbitration center (or the arbitrators of the ad hoc tribunal), the disputing parties, and the Procuracy at the same level. Within 07 working days from acceptance, the Chief Judge appoints a panel of three judges (one presiding) to hear the petition; within 30 days from appointment, the panel must open the hearing session; the dossier is transferred to the Procuracy for study within 07 working days before the hearing date.

The hearing session proceeds with the presence of the parties, lawyers (if any), and the prosecutor; if a duly summoned party is absent without a legitimate reason, the panel still hears the petition. After considering the petition, attached documents, and hearing the opinions of the parties and the Procuracy, the panel deliberates and decides by majority.

A special mechanism under Clause 7, Article 71: at the request of a party and where deemed appropriate, the hearing panel may temporarily suspend consideration for no more than 60 days to allow the arbitral tribunal to remedy procedural defects, in order to eliminate the grounds for setting aside the award — reflecting the policy preference for preserving the validity of arbitral awards.

The key principle in Clause 4, Article 71: the hearing panel bases its examination and decision on Article 68 and the attached documents; it does not re-try the merits of the dispute already resolved by the arbitral tribunal. As a result, a petitioning party cannot argue that “the arbitral tribunal misapplied the law” or that “the compensation is too high” — a setting-aside petition only has a chance when it attacks procedure and jurisdiction: a defective arbitration agreement, an improperly composed tribunal, serious procedural violations, forged evidence, or an award contrary to the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law.

Legal consequences of the decision on the setting-aside petition

The hearing panel has the power to issue a decision setting aside or not setting aside the award (Clause 5, Article 71); where the petitioning party withdraws the petition or is absent without a legitimate reason after being duly summoned, it issues a decision suspending the hearing of the petition.

If the award is set aside, Clause 8, Article 71 provides that the parties may re-agree to refer the dispute to arbitration, or one party has the right to file a lawsuit in court. Note: setting aside the award does not mean the petitioning party “wins” the underlying dispute — the case must be resolved anew from the beginning. If the award is not set aside, it is enforced under the procedure for enforcing arbitral awards.

Two other important points: the court’s decision on the setting-aside petition is final and enforceable — no further complaint or protest follows (Clause 10, Article 71); and the time spent resolving the dispute at arbitration plus the time spent on the setting-aside procedure is not counted toward the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit (Clause 9, Article 71).

In practice: setting aside is the exception, not the rule

In Vietnamese adjudication practice, setting-aside petitions are only granted where the grounds in Article 68 are strictly satisfied; courts tend to interpret the grounds narrowly to protect the finality of arbitration.

The two-way lesson for businesses: on the side at risk of losing, do not bet on the setting-aside procedure as a default “plan B” — focus on presenting your case well in the arbitration itself, and pursue a setting-aside petition only with specific, clear grounds. On the contract-drafting and proceedings side, strict compliance with the agreed tribunal composition and procedure is the best way to be “immune” to a future setting-aside petition.

Frequently asked questions

Useful links

General information

This article is for general information only on commercial arbitration law in Vietnam as of the date of publication and is not legal advice for any specific case. Laws and their practical application may change; readers should consult a lawyer before making decisions or entering into transactions.