Evidence in FDI Arbitration: Effective Collection and Presentation

Arbitration is won on documents more often than on rhetoric. In FDI disputes — where the events span years, countries and languages — the side that preserved contemporaneous evidence in an organised way argues from strength, while the side reconstructing events from memory argues uphill. Evidence work starts when a dispute becomes foreseeable, not when the request for arbitration is drafted.

Collection: the hold, the custodians, the native files

The first step is a litigation hold: a written instruction suspending routine deletion of documents and data for everyone who touched the matter. Then custodian mapping — who held the contracts, the correspondence, the approvals, the site records — because in FDI projects evidence is scattered across the parent, the Vietnamese subsidiary, contractors and personal devices. Electronic evidence must be collected in native form with metadata preserved (creation and modification data are themselves evidence), with a chain-of-custody record of who collected what, when and how. Translations should be commissioned early for the documents that will actually be exhibits, in the arbitration’s working language — late translation is a common, avoidable source of procedural friction.

Electronic evidence and Vietnamese law touchpoints

Modern tribunals accept electronic evidence as routine: emails, ERP and accounting system extracts, messaging threads, CCTV and access logs. The questions are authenticity and integrity. Vietnamese law aligns: data messages carry evidential value where their origin and integrity are verifiable, and notarised factual records (vi bang) are frequently used to fix the state of physical and digital facts in Vietnam. Where evidence sits in Vietnam and may be needed for enforcement or related local proceedings, fixing it early — before systems rotate logs or premises change hands — matters more than its elegance. Privilege must be mapped at collection time: in-house counsel communications and external counsel work product need segregation before any production phase, not during it.

Presentation and the other side’s silence

Tribunals run evidence on a timetable: statements of claim and defence with their exhibits, a document production phase (often managed with a Redfern schedule under the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence), witness statements, expert reports, then the hearing. The discipline is relevance: each exhibit indexed to the paragraph and fact it supports; tribunals discount unindexed mass production and remember who wasted their time. Where the counterparty withholds documents it should hold, the remedy ladder is: specific production request, tribunal order, then a request for adverse inferences — the tribunal may assume the withheld document would have hurt the withholder — with cost consequences at the end. A party that preserved well can climb that ladder credibly, because its own production is complete.

Frequently Asked Questions

How should evidence for an FDI arbitration be collected effectively?

Start at dispute foreseeability, not at filing: issue a litigation hold, preserve native electronic files with metadata, map custodians, and collect contemporaneous project documents — the tribunal weighs records made during the events far above reconstructions made for the case.

Is electronic evidence accepted?

Yes — emails, system logs, messaging records and electronic documents are routine in modern arbitration, provided authenticity and chain of custody can be shown. VN law likewise recognises data messages as evidence when integrity and origin are verifiable.

How is evidence presented to the arbitral tribunal?

Through the agreed procedural timetable: document production phases, witness statements and expert reports exchanged in sequence, with exhibits indexed to the pleadings. Tribunals penalise document dumps — every exhibit should be tied to a fact it proves.

What if the other side does not produce evidence?

Use the tribunal’s powers: request production orders (commonly organised with the IBA Rules on Evidence), and if the other side still refuses, ask the tribunal to draw adverse inferences and reflect the conduct in costs. A party’s own missing documents are the hardest gap to explain.

Reviewed by the Legal Practice Group – FLAT LAW FIRM

This legal analysis has been verified against current Vietnamese regulations and cross-border FDI transaction practices by the attorneys at FLAT LAW FIRM.

Meet Our Attorneys Schedule a Consultation