Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Vietnam

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Vietnam: Grounds for Refusal, Court Practice and Practical Risk Management

1. Introduction: Winning an International Arbitration Does Not Guarantee Recovery of Assets in Vietnam

For foreign businesses with counterparties, assets or commercial operations in Vietnam, international arbitration is often chosen as a neutral dispute resolution mechanism capable of facilitating cross-border enforcement. However, even after obtaining a favourable award from an international arbitral institution, the successful party may need to complete a separate court procedure in Vietnam before pursuing enforcement against the award debtor’s assets.

This procedure is an application for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of a foreign arbitral award. It is governed primarily by the 2015 Civil Procedure Code of Vietnam (the “Civil Procedure Code”) and the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”).

As a general principle, Vietnamese law and the New York Convention do not permit courts to rehear the merits of a dispute already resolved by arbitration. Nevertheless, a Vietnamese court may refuse recognition and enforcement where a statutory ground for refusal is established. Examples include an invalid arbitration agreement, inadequate notice to the award debtor, an award exceeding the scope of the arbitration agreement, procedural irregularities, an award that is not binding, or recognition and enforcement that would contravene the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law.

Published court decisions indicate that the risks do not arise solely from whether a statutory ground for refusal exists. They may also depend on how the parties prepare their evidence, frame arguments concerning the arbitration agreement, raise procedural objections and distinguish between judicial scrutiny of the conditions for recognition and an impermissible review of the merits of the award.

This article examines the principal grounds for refusal, relevant published court decisions and practical litigation strategies for both applicants seeking recognition and award debtors opposing enforcement in Vietnam.

2. Legal Framework: The New York Convention and Vietnam’s Civil Procedure Code

2.1. The 1958 New York Convention: Recognition, Enforcement and Grounds for Refusal

The New York Convention seeks to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards among Contracting States. Three provisions are particularly relevant to recognition and enforcement proceedings in Vietnam:

Article III: Contracting States must recognise arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the procedural rules of the jurisdiction where enforcement is sought. They may not impose substantially more onerous conditions or higher fees than those applicable to the recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitral awards.
Article IV: This provision specifies the documents that an applicant must produce, including the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy, the arbitration agreement and, where necessary, translations.
Article V: This provision sets out the grounds on which recognition and enforcement may be refused. These are divided into grounds that the award debtor must prove under paragraph 1 and grounds that the court may consider under paragraph 2.

Under Article V(1), the award debtor may be required to establish one of several circumstances, including the parties’ incapacity to enter into the arbitration agreement, the agreement’s invalidity, inadequate notice or an inability to present its case, an award exceeding the scope of the arbitration agreement, irregularities in the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure, or an award that has not become binding or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority in the relevant jurisdiction.

Under Article V(2), the court where recognition is sought may refuse recognition and enforcement if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of that jurisdiction, or if recognition and enforcement would be contrary to that jurisdiction’s public policy.

2.2. Vietnam’s 2015 Civil Procedure Code: Conditions for Review and Grounds for Non-Recognition

Under Vietnamese law, the principal provisions are found in Chapters XXXV and XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, including:

Article 424: Foreign arbitral awards eligible for consideration for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam.
Article 425: The right to apply for recognition and enforcement and the time limit for submitting an application.
Article 451: The limitation period for applying for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
Articles 452–453: Application requirements and supporting documents.
Article 458: The procedure for reviewing an application and the principle that the court must not retry the underlying dispute.
Article 459: Circumstances in which a foreign arbitral award will not be recognised.
Article 460: Service of the court’s decision.
Article 461 and related provisions: Appeals, protests and further review in accordance with statutory procedures.

Article 459 of the Civil Procedure Code broadly reflects the grounds set out in Article V of the New York Convention. In practice, the two sources should be read together rather than relying exclusively on a provision of the Civil Procedure Code while disregarding the Convention’s requirements and interpretative framework.

Under Article 458(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, the panel reviewing an application must not retry a dispute already resolved by a foreign arbitral tribunal. The court examines the award and its supporting documents against the Civil Procedure Code, relevant Vietnamese law and international treaties to which Vietnam is a party.

Practical significance: The applicant must prepare a complete record demonstrating that the conditions for recognition have been met. The opposing party must identify the correct ground for refusal and produce corresponding evidence. Neither party should treat recognition proceedings as an opportunity to reopen the entire commercial dispute.

3. Circumstances in Which a Foreign Arbitral Award May Be Refused Recognition and Enforcement

3.1. An Invalid Arbitration Agreement or a Party’s Lack of Capacity

Points (a) and (b) of Article 459(1) of the Civil Procedure Code and Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention address the parties’ capacity and the legal validity of the arbitration agreement.

Potential risks include:

The person signing the contract or arbitration clause lacked authority to represent the relevant party.
The authorisation was invalid or did not cover the relevant transaction.
The arbitration agreement failed to satisfy applicable requirements concerning form or validity.
An arbitration clause in the principal contract does not bind a related entity or does not cover the dispute for which enforcement is sought.
Multiple contracts, appendices or amendments contain different dispute resolution clauses.

For an applicant, producing only a contract containing an arbitration clause may be insufficient if the record raises questions about the signatory’s capacity or authority. Depending on the issue in dispute, the applicant should consider preparing corporate records, powers of attorney, internal resolutions and documents demonstrating performance of the contract or acceptance of the arbitration clause.

For an award debtor, the applicable law must be identified when challenging the parties’ capacity or the validity of the arbitration agreement under Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention. Vietnamese rules on legal representation should not automatically be applied to conclude that an international arbitration agreement is invalid. The law governing the particular issue must first be determined.

3.2. Inadequate Notice or Inability to Present the Case

Point (c) of Article 459(1) of the Civil Procedure Code and Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention permit refusal where the award debtor was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or the arbitral proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case for reasons beyond its control.

Potential risks include:

Notices were sent to an address that was no longer in use or was inconsistent with the parties’ agreement.
There is no reliable evidence of dispatch, delivery or receipt.
A party was not notified in a timely manner of the appointment of an arbitrator or an important procedural hearing.
Default proceedings continued in the absence of a party without satisfying the applicable procedural requirements.
A party was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to claims, submit evidence or present arguments.

Not every notice deficiency automatically warrants refusal. The court must assess the evidence and the circumstances, including the agreed method of notification, the applicable arbitral rules, whether the party actually knew of the proceedings and whether it had a meaningful opportunity to present its case.

Recommendations for applicants: Prepare a complete service record, including emails, courier reports, delivery confirmations, correspondence between the parties, procedural orders and evidence demonstrating the opposing party’s opportunity to participate.

Recommendations for award debtors: Identify the specific notice that was defective, explain why the address or method used was inappropriate, identify the procedural right affected and demonstrate how the deficiency deprived the party of an opportunity to present its case. A general assertion that notice was inadequate is unlikely to be persuasive without supporting evidence.

3.3. The Award Exceeds the Scope of the Arbitration Agreement or the Claims Submitted

Point (d) of Article 459(1) of the Civil Procedure Code and Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention address awards that decide disputes not submitted to arbitration or go beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Issues may arise where an arbitral tribunal decides a claim that was never submitted, determines the rights of an entity not bound by the arbitration agreement, or grants relief exceeding the scope of the dispute entrusted to the tribunal.

However, an excess-of-jurisdiction objection must be distinguished from disagreement with the tribunal’s interpretation of a contract or assessment of evidence. Disagreement with the merits does not automatically constitute a ground for refusal.

An important consideration is that the law permits recognition and enforcement of separable parts of an award where the portion addressing matters within the scope of the arbitration agreement can be distinguished from the portion exceeding that scope. Applicants should therefore assess whether partial recognition is available rather than automatically seeking recognition of the entire award or assuming that the entire award must be refused.

3.4. Irregularities in the Composition of the Arbitral Tribunal or the Arbitral Procedure

Point (dd) of Article 459(1) of the Civil Procedure Code and Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention address situations in which the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was inconsistent with the parties’ agreement or, in the absence of an agreement, with the law of the country where the arbitration took place.

Potential risks include:

The appointment of an arbitrator did not comply with the parties’ agreement or the applicable arbitral rules.
The composition of the tribunal was inconsistent with the arbitration clause.
The proceedings did not comply with the selected procedural rules.
A party was not given a reasonable opportunity to present its case or respond to material issues.
A dispute arises concerning compliance with procedural deadlines, but the record does not identify the governing rule or the consequences of the alleged breach.

Not every departure from the rules of an international arbitral institution automatically constitutes a ground for refusal. The court must consider which rules the parties selected, what those rules required, the alleged breach and whether the circumstances satisfy the conditions under the New York Convention.

3.5. The Award Is Not Binding or Has Been Set Aside or Suspended

Points (e) and (g) of Article 459(1) of the Civil Procedure Code and Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention address awards that have not become binding on the parties or have been set aside or suspended by a competent authority in the relevant jurisdiction.

Applicants should provide documentation demonstrating that the award is binding and satisfies the applicable conditions for recognition. Where the applicable law or arbitral rules provide for correction, interpretation or additional awards, the status of those procedures and their effect on the award’s binding nature should be assessed.

If a party has applied to set aside an award in the jurisdiction where it was made or another relevant jurisdiction, the opposing party should produce the official decision and establish its legal effect. The mere filing of an application to set aside an award should not be treated as equivalent to the award having been set aside or suspended.

3.6. The Subject Matter Is Not Arbitrable Under Vietnamese Law

Under Article 459(2) of the Civil Procedure Code and Article V(2)(a) of the New York Convention, the court may refuse recognition if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Vietnamese law.

When relying on this ground, the precise legal nature of the relationship and the subject matter determined by the award must be identified. Neither the title of a contract nor the fact that one party is a state-related entity is, by itself, sufficient to establish that the dispute is non-arbitrable.

Applicants should explain the commercial nature of the relationship, the basis of the arbitration agreement and the relevant statutory provisions. Award debtors should identify the specific rule of Vietnamese law that prevents the dispute from being resolved by arbitration rather than merely asserting that the dispute was outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3.7. Recognition and Enforcement Would Contravene the Fundamental Principles of Vietnamese Law

This is a frequently contested ground, corresponding to point (b) of Article 459(2) of the Civil Procedure Code and Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention concerning public policy.

Vietnamese legislation uses the expression “fundamental principles of Vietnamese law”. The risk arises when a party invokes this ground to ask the court to revisit issues already decided by the arbitral tribunal, such as contractual interpretation, evidentiary findings, the calculation of liabilities or the application of foreign law.

A distinction must be drawn between:

An award that may have incorrectly applied a legal provision or assessed evidence unpersuasively; and
An award that conflicts with a fundamental principle of Vietnamese law to such an extent that recognition and enforcement cannot be accepted.

These situations are not equivalent. If a court uses the public policy ground to reassess the merits as though it were another appellate instance, the limits of recognition proceedings risk being undermined.

Award debtors should identify the fundamental principle relied upon, explain how the award conflicts with that principle and demonstrate why recognition would produce an unacceptable legal consequence under Vietnamese law. Applicants should explain why the objection concerns the merits of the dispute rather than a genuine conflict with a fundamental principle of Vietnamese law.

4. Published Court Practice: Refusal Decisions Reversed on Appeal or Cassation Review

The number of published judgments and decisions does not necessarily represent all cases resolved in Vietnam. Furthermore, a first-instance refusal may subsequently be amended or set aside by a higher court. Published practice must therefore distinguish between a final refusal of recognition and a refusal at one level of adjudication that was later overturned.

4.1. Judgment No. 95/2023/KDTM-PT dated 24 August 2023: Public Policy Is Not a Mechanism for Reviewing the Merits[1]

In this case, Company S applied for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of SIAC Award No. 090 of 2022, arising from a share purchase agreement with Company R. The first-instance court refused recognition, principally on the basis that the award had not addressed certain cost-deduction claims raised by Company R and that the failure to apply Vietnamese law in the manner preferred by that party contravened the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law.

On appeal, the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City held that the arbitral tribunal had resolved the dispute on the basis of the parties’ agreement. As regards the proposed cost deductions, the award indicated that the tribunal did not regard them as counterclaims properly submitted under the applicable procedure, while preserving the possibility of pursuing them in separate proceedings. The appellate court considered that this issue concerned the merits of the award and did not fall within the scope of review in recognition proceedings.

The appellate court accepted the appeal and protest, amended the first-instance decision and recognised and permitted enforcement of the SIAC award in Vietnam.

Practical lesson: Award debtors should not simply assert that the tribunal failed to address a claim, misapplied the law or rejected a desired deduction. They must demonstrate that the circumstances constitute a ground for refusal under the New York Convention or Article 459 of the Civil Procedure Code. Applicants, in turn, should explain why the objections concern issues within the scope of the award and do not justify a review of the merits.

4.2. Supreme People’s Court Decision No. 03/2023/KN-KDTM: Procedural Irregularities Must Be Assessed in Context[2]

According to an analysis published by Arbitration Asia on 13 January 2026, Supreme People’s Court Decision No. 03/2023/KN-KDTM concerned an application for recognition of an ICC consent award. A lower court had previously refused recognition based on procedural concerns, including the timing of the award and certain aspects of ICC procedure.

The Supreme People’s Court set aside the refusal, thereby restoring recognition and enforcement. The published analysis emphasises that compliance with arbitral procedure must be assessed in the context of the arbitral rules selected by the parties, rather than by automatically applying every procedural requirement applicable to domestic arbitration in Vietnam to a foreign arbitration.

Practical lesson: Applicants should provide the applicable arbitral rules, procedural decisions and an explanation of the circumstances in which the award was issued. Award debtors should demonstrate the specific irregularity and explain why it satisfies the legal conditions for refusal rather than merely pointing to differences between foreign arbitration procedures and Vietnamese civil procedure.

4.3. Decision No. 09/2024/KDTM-GĐT dated 11 June 2024: Authority to Sign and Notice Must Be Established by Evidence[3]

This case concerned an award issued by the Guangzhou Arbitration Commission in a dispute between JIN YE and Shengli Vietnam. The first-instance court recognised and permitted enforcement of the award, but the appellate court amended that decision and refused recognition. The Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court subsequently conducted cassation review, set aside the appellate decision and upheld the first-instance decision.

The award debtor raised several objections, including that the person signing the contract was not its legal representative and lacked authorisation, that it had not received notice during the arbitration and that there were concerns relating to the duration of the proceedings. The Judicial Council assessed these issues against the record and the parties’ agreement and rejected the appellate court’s approach to refusal.

Practical lesson: Objections concerning signing authority, the validity of the arbitration agreement and service of notice must be supported by evidence and an analysis of the applicable law. Applicants should retain documentation concerning representative authority and notification procedures. Award debtors should identify the precise deficiency in authority or notice and explain why it satisfies a specific ground for refusal.

4.4. Appellate Decision No. 21/2024/QĐPT-KDTM dated 20 May 2024: Courts Must Not Reassess Evidence or Contractual Interpretation[4]

According to a published case analysis, a Dubai company applied for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of ICC Award No. 24358/HTG dated 11 February 2021 against a Vietnamese company in Tay Ninh Province. The first-instance court refused recognition, but the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City reversed that decision on appeal and granted recognition and enforcement.

The published summary emphasises that disagreements over evidentiary findings, contractual interpretation or the application of law concern the merits of the dispute. They do not provide a basis for the Vietnamese court to retry the case during foreign-award recognition proceedings.

Practical lesson: Applicants should frame their submissions around the limits imposed by Article 458 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article V of the New York Convention. Award debtors should avoid recasting disagreements over the merits as public policy objections unless they can demonstrate a genuine and sufficiently serious conflict with a fundamental principle of Vietnamese law.

4.5. Published Decisions Do Not Always Reflect the Final Outcome[5]

Cong Luat Viet reports that Article 459 of the Civil Procedure Code was cited in 30 published judgments and decisions in its database, with the latest recorded document dating from 2025. The database includes recognition applications and other types of proceedings. This figure reflects only the documents collected by that database and is not an official nationwide statistic.

Businesses should therefore verify the full text of each judgment or decision, the level of adjudication, the legal grounds relied upon and the status of the decision following any appeal, protest or cassation review. A first-instance refusal that is later reversed should not be cited as a final determination that the award cannot be recognised in Vietnam.

5. Time Limits and Application Documents: Avoidable Procedural Risks

5.1. Application Deadline

Under Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, the limitation period for applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is three years from the date on which the award becomes legally effective. Time during which a force majeure event or an objective obstacle prevents the applicant from exercising its rights is excluded where the statutory conditions are satisfied.

Applicants should not delay preparing their applications merely because voluntary negotiations with the award debtor are ongoing. Negotiations may continue in parallel, but the legal deadline should be monitored independently, with clear evidence of the date on which the award became effective.

5.2. Documents to Prepare

Articles 452 and 453 of the Civil Procedure Code address the application and supporting documents. In practice, the application should be checked against at least the following items:

The original award or a duly authenticated or certified copy, as applicable.
The original arbitration agreement or a duly authenticated or certified copy.
Documents establishing the award’s binding status where that issue is disputed.
Properly certified Vietnamese translations of foreign-language documents where required.
Documents establishing the parties’ legal status, representative authority and powers of attorney.
Information concerning the award debtor and relevant assets in Vietnam, where required for the particular application.
Evidence and documents needed to respond to anticipated objections.

The applicant should organise the documents systematically, prepare an index and identify which document establishes each condition for recognition. A complete record submitted at the outset may reduce unnecessary disputes concerning documentary compliance.

6. Recommendations for Foreign Applicants Seeking Recognition and Enforcement

6.1. Structure the Application Around the Legal Conditions for Recognition

The applicant should present the application in a logical sequence: the basis for applying the New York Convention or Article 424 of the Civil Procedure Code; the award’s binding status; the arbitration agreement; compliance with documentary requirements; and responses to anticipated grounds for refusal.

If the award debtor raised objections during the arbitration, the applicant should obtain the relevant procedural orders and documents demonstrating how the tribunal addressed those objections. Where notice may be contested, the applicant should prepare service evidence and documents showing that the opposing party had an opportunity to present its case.

6.2. Anticipate Public Policy Objections

Applicants should analyse potential objections under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention and Article 459(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code. If the opposing party argues that the award violates the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law, the applicant should distinguish issues concerning the merits from a genuine conflict with a fundamental legal principle.

Decisions such as Judgment No. 95/2023/KDTM-PT demonstrate that an appellate court may reject an attempt to use public policy as a means of reviewing substantive issues already determined by the tribunal. Nevertheless, the outcome remains dependent on the facts and evidence of each case. Applicants should not assume that every public policy objection will be dismissed.

6.3. Plan for Enforcement from the Outset

Before commencing arbitration, businesses should assess where their counterparties hold assets and whether enforcement will be required in Vietnam or other jurisdictions. If assets are located in Vietnam, applicants should consider documentary requirements, time limits, asset identification and the procedures that will follow recognition.

Enforcement planning should not begin only after the arbitration has been won. Early preparation can reduce delays in collecting evidence and help prevent missed deadlines.

7. Recommendations for Award Debtors Opposing Enforcement in Vietnam

7.1. Rely on Specific Grounds for Refusal Rather Than Disagreement with the Outcome

Award debtors should prepare a table matching each objection to a provision of Article V of the New York Convention and Article 459 of the Civil Procedure Code. For each objection, they should identify:

What specific event occurred?
What evidence establishes that event?
Which legal provision applies?
Why does the event satisfy the legal conditions for refusal?
Should refusal apply to the entire award or only to a separable part?

This approach helps avoid broad assertions such as “the award is unfair”, “the tribunal applied the law incorrectly” or “the outcome causes substantial loss” without establishing a connection to a statutory ground for refusal.

7.2. Preserve Procedural Objections During the Arbitration

If the award debtor identifies concerns about jurisdiction, the validity of the arbitration agreement or procedural compliance, it should raise them in accordance with the applicable arbitral rules and preserve supporting evidence. Raising an objection for the first time during recognition proceedings, after remaining silent during the arbitration, may give rise to disputes about the objection’s validity and persuasiveness.

7.3. Establish Lack of Notice or Inability to Present the Case

Where relying on Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention or Article 459(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, the award debtor should provide specific evidence concerning addresses, methods of service, receipt dates, access to the record and the actual opportunity to respond. It should also explain how the alleged deficiency affected its ability to present the case rather than merely identifying a formal irregularity.

7.4. Consider Whether Partial Refusal Is Appropriate

If the award allegedly exceeds the scope of the arbitration agreement, the award debtor should identify the specific portion said to exceed jurisdiction and assess whether it can be separated from the remainder of the award. Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention and Article 459(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Code contemplate recognition of the portion within the scope of the arbitration agreement where the relevant parts are separable.

Accordingly, seeking refusal of the entire award when only one separable portion is alleged to exceed the tribunal’s jurisdiction may not be consistent with the statutory framework.

8. Checklist for Both Parties Before the Court Hearing

Applicants seeking recognition should:

Verify the three-year deadline and retain evidence of the date on which the award became effective.
Prepare the original or duly authenticated or certified copies of the award and arbitration agreement, as applicable.
Complete the required translations and representative-authority documents.
Prepare the record of notice, service and procedural orders.
Develop submissions addressing each relevant ground under Article V of the New York Convention and Article 459 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Identify relevant assets and prepare an enforcement plan for Vietnam.

Award debtors should:

Identify the precise statutory ground for each objection.
Collect evidence concerning capacity, the validity of the arbitration agreement, notice or procedural compliance, as relevant.
Distinguish objections to the merits from objections that fall within the statutory grounds for refusal.
Consider whether partial refusal is available.
Prepare written submissions and supporting documents for each objection rather than relying on general assertions.
Assess negotiation, payment or other arrangements for managing the liability if the award is recognised.

9. Conclusion

The New York Convention 1958 and Vietnam’s Civil Procedure Code establish a recognition and enforcement framework based on limited grounds for refusal. Published court practice demonstrates that objections concerning public policy, arbitration agreements and procedural compliance can produce different outcomes at different levels of adjudication, particularly where courts must distinguish between reviewing legality and retrying the merits.

For foreign applicants, the priorities are a complete application record, evidence concerning the arbitration agreement and procedural compliance, effective deadline management and an enforcement plan for Vietnam. For award debtors, the priorities are identifying the correct ground for refusal, proving the relevant facts and avoiding attempts to turn recognition proceedings into a rehearing of the dispute.

An international arbitral award can deliver practical economic value in Vietnam only when the successful party prepares a robust recognition application and the opposing party understands the limited scope of the grounds for refusal and the applicable evidentiary burden.

Disclaimer: The judgments and decisions discussed in this article illustrate risks arising from refusals at lower levels of adjudication and how higher courts addressed them. They are not examples of final refusals of recognition and enforcement. This article does not assert that the decisions constitute binding judicial precedents. BFSC Law LLC recommends that readers should not rely on the information presented as legal advice for any specific matter.

BFSC Law LLC advises foreign and Vietnamese businesses on the assessment of foreign arbitral awards for recognition and enforcement, the preparation of court applications and submissions, responses to grounds for refusal, and cross-border enforcement strategies and risk management.

For advice on commercial dispute resolution in Vietnam, applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, or objections to recognition and enforcement in Vietnam, please contact the BFSC Law LLC secretariat in Hanoi.

Address: Suite 1040, 10th Floor, Pacific Place Building, 83B Ly Thuong Kiet Street, Hanoi, Vietnam
Telephone: +84-24 7108 2688 | Hotline: +84-906 199 119
Email: [email protected] | Website: www.bfsc-law.com

[1] Source: Decision No. 95/2023/KDTM-PT

[2] Source: Arbitration Asia — Vietnam Courts’ Practice on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

[3] Source: Unilaw — Decision No. 09/2024/KDTM-GĐT

[4] Source: Unilaw — Foreign Arbitral Award in Vietnam

[5] Source: Cong Luat Viet — Decisions Citing Article 459

23/10/2026

Knowledge Center