Under the arbitration framework, there are prescribed grounds on which arbitral awards may be set aside before the courts.
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 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.
In ING Bank N.V. & Anor v Tumpuan Megah Development Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 1955, an issue arose vis-a-vis the appropriate mode of enforcement of a foreign arbitral award handed down in London …
Where a party disagrees with an arbitral tribunal’s finding as to the seat of arbitration, how may it contest the decision? Can it simply file an annulment application before the courts of its perceived seat?
From an academic perspective, the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law can be clearly presented and analysed based on the Constitution and foundational statutes. However, in judicial practice and law enforcement, the issue is far more complex…