Under the arbitration framework, there are prescribed grounds on which arbitral awards may be set aside before the courts.
During the upcoming 2026 edition of Paris Arbitration Week (“PAW”), Rajah & Tann Asia will host a panel discussion titled “Beyond the Passport: Is Nationality a Reliable Proxy for Neutrality?”
In DRL v DRK [2026] SGHC 32, the Singapore Court upheld the termination of arbitral proceedings rendered impossible by sanctions imposed on the claimant.
In DRO V DRP [2025] SGHC 255, the High Court held that a failure to satisfy the preconditions to arbitration is a matter of admissibility, rather than jurisdiction.
In these decisions, the PRC Supreme Court considered whether agreements were formed on a digital platform or on email, and whether arbitration clauses applied.
In The “Yangtze Harmony” [2026], the Singapore High Court considered whether an arbitral award extinguishes an admiralty in rem claim.
In considering New York Convention grounds for setting aside an arbitral award – particularly the public policy ground – Vietnamese courts may sometimes test the boundary between legality review and impermissible merits review in certain cases.
In DMZ v DNZ [2025] SGCA 52, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered whether the courts could intervene in a procedural decision made by SIAC in an ongoing arbitration.
This article outlines the current legal framework and the practical advantages of commercial mediation in Vietnam.