Scenario: Two companies in dispute over a sales contract agree to VIAC arbitration. With arbitrators spread across three countries, the tribunal holds all hearings online. After the award is issued, the losing party immediately petitions the court to set it aside on a single ground: “the hearing was not held in person at a physical venue, so the arbitral procedure was violated.” Does this argument hold? The short answer: an online hearing is not a ground for setting aside an arbitral award.
1. The short answer: the online format falls outside the set-aside grounds
The Law on Commercial Arbitration 54/2010/QH12 (effective 01/01/2011; Clause 3, Article 7 amended by Law 81/2025/QH15, effective 01/7/2025; the amending draft had not been adopted as of 14/10/2026) contains no provision requiring hearings to be held in person at a physical venue. On the contrary, the law is open about procedural form: Article 11.2 (hearings at an appropriate venue), Article 12.3 (notice by email), Article 56.3 (the tribunal may decide on documents and evidence without the parties being present).
More importantly, the VIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 (effective 01/7/2026, replacing the 2017 version) expressly provide in Article 30(1) that the tribunal may conduct hearings in person, online, in a hybrid format, or in any other form the tribunal considers appropriate, unless the parties agree otherwise. The Rules also allow proceedings in an electronic environment, with summons sent at least 15 days before the hearing (Articles 30(2), 30(3)).
The grounds for setting aside an award are exhaustively listed in Article 68.2 — only five: (a) no arbitration agreement or an invalid agreement; (b) tribunal composition or arbitral procedure inconsistent with the parties’ agreement or contrary to this Law; (c) the dispute falls outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction; (d) forged evidence or an arbitrator receiving material benefits; (e) the award contravenes fundamental principles of Vietnamese law. The online format itself falls under none of these five grounds.
2. The only real risk: ground (b) of Article 68.2
The risk lies not in the online format, but in whether the procedure was inconsistent with the parties’ agreement or contrary to the Law — i.e., ground (b) of Article 68.2. Risk arises where:
- The arbitration agreement or the procedural rules did not permit online hearings, yet the tribunal held them on its own initiative;
- The online hearing prevented a party from exercising its right to present its case — prolonged disconnection, invalid summons — breaching the principle of equality (Article 4.3, Law on Commercial Arbitration).
On the burden of proof: the party seeking set-aside must prove grounds (a)–(d); the court verifies ground (e) on its own motion (Article 68.3). A procedural violation cannot simply be inferred from the online format.
3. The safety valve before set-aside: cure instead of annulment
Even where a procedural defect exists, the law prefers saving the award:
- Article 71.7: the court may suspend for up to 60 days so the tribunal can remedy procedural defects — not every defect leads to set-aside.
- Article 13: the affected party must object promptly during the proceedings; a party that knew of a violation yet continued without objection loses the right to object later.
The practical lesson: if an online hearing has problems (connection, right to be heard), object immediately during the proceedings — staying silent and invoking the defect later to seek set-aside will rarely succeed.
4. Technical risks to anticipate: seat and signatures
Two technical points often overlooked in online hearings:
- Seat of arbitration: Article 3.8 defines the “place of dispute resolution” in a geographical sense; Article 61.1(a)(i) requires the award to state the “date and place of issuance” with arbitrators’ signatures. Where arbitrators in several countries meet online while the agreed seat is Vietnam, disputes may arise over determining the seat — affecting recognition and enforcement abroad (per the Ministry of Justice’s analysis).
- Form of signatures: arbitrators’ signatures on awards issued after online hearings must satisfy the Law on Electronic Transactions 20/2023/QH15 (effective 01/7/2024, replacing Law 51/2005) on the value of data messages (Article 12) and electronic/digital signatures (Articles 22–23).
An arbitral award is final and takes effect from the date of issuance (Article 61.5).
5. The set-aside procedure
- Time limit: 30 days from receipt of the award (Article 69).
- Scope of review: the court does not re-examine the merits of the dispute (Article 71) — it checks only the five grounds in Article 68.2.
- Jurisdiction: set-aside falls within the jurisdiction of certain provincial-level People’s Courts (Article 7.2(g) as amended by Law 81/2025).
Frequently asked questions
Does an online hearing automatically invalidate the award?
No. There is no set-aside ground called “online hearing”; the court examines only the five closed grounds in Article 68 and does not re-examine the merits.
When does an online hearing become a risk?
Where the agreement or procedural rules did not permit online hearings yet the tribunal held them anyway, or where the online format prevented a party from presenting its case (breach of equality) — i.e., ground (b) of Article 68.2.
What to do upon spotting a procedural defect in an online hearing?
Object immediately during the proceedings (Article 13). Continuing in silence and invoking the defect later to seek set-aside means losing the right to object.
Is an award after an online hearing harder to enforce abroad?
The online format itself is no obstacle; the points to watch are determining the place of issuance (Articles 3.8, 61.1(a)) and signature form under the Law on Electronic Transactions 20/2023 — relevant to international recognition under Article V(1)(d) of the 1958 New York Convention.
Sources
- Law on Commercial Arbitration 54/2010/QH12 (effective 01/01/2011; Clause 3, Article 7 amended by Law 81/2025/QH15, effective 01/7/2025): Article 3.8 (geographical seat); Article 4.3 (equality principle); Article 7.2(g) (set-aside jurisdiction — certain provincial People’s Courts); Articles 11.2, 12.3, 55, 56 (hearing procedure); Article 13 (loss of right to object); Article 61 (award content and effect); Articles 68 (set-aside grounds — 5 closed grounds), 68.3 (proof), 69 (30-day limit), 71 (no merits review; Clause 7 — suspension up to 60 days).
- VIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 (effective 01/7/2026, replacing the 2017 version): Article 30 (hearing formats — in person, online, hybrid; summons at least 15 days ahead).
- Law on Electronic Transactions 20/2023/QH15 (effective 01/7/2024, replacing Law 51/2005): Article 12 (value of data messages); Articles 22–23 (electronic and digital signatures).
- 1958 New York Convention (Vietnam is a member): Article V(1)(d) (refusal of recognition where procedure is inconsistent with the agreement or the law of the seat).
- Resolution 01/2014/NQ-HDTP guiding the Law on Commercial Arbitration (still in force); Ministry of Justice analysis on online arbitration (seat and form risks).
Is your arbitral award facing a set-aside application, or are you worried about procedural defects in the proceedings? Reach us via the Contact page of FLAT Law Firm for an assessment of the set-aside grounds under Article 68 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration and a strategy to defend the award.
The legal content of this article was reviewed by FLAT’s AI Legal Council and submitted to the owner for approval; it is not an opinion of a licensed lawyer and does not replace legal advice for specific cases.
For reference only, not legal advice.
