VIAC and University of Economics and Law (UEL), Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City organized the Workshop "Controlling time for submission of evidence in Arbitration"

Dr. Dao Gia Phuc - Director of the Institute of International and Comparative Law, University of Economics and Law (UEL),
Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City

Delivering the welcome remarks at the Workshop, Dr. Dao Gia Phuc - Director of the Institute of International and Comparative Law, University of Economics and Law (UEL), Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City expressed his appreciation for the initiative to organize the event, while also commending the collaborative efforts between UEL and VIAC in advancing in-depth academic activities on arbitration and mediation. Sharing from his experiences as a partner with VIAC for three consecutive years through the Arbitration – Mediation Symposium series, he has observed a positive trend wherein an increasing number of undergraduate and graduate students at UEL are showing a strong interest in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods. This growing interest is particularly evident in the notable increase in theses, dissertations, and specialized research projects focused on ADR in recent years. According to Dr. Phuc, Academic initiatives such as the AMS have played – and continue to play – a vital role in “planting the seeds” for the development of both research mindsets and the practical application of ADR in Vietnam’s academic and legal communities. Stem from that, he emphasized the desire to sustain and further strengthen the cooperative relationship between UEL and VIAC, with the aim of building a long-lasting academic forum where experts, scholars, and students can jointly exchange ideas and conduct in-depth research on commercial arbitration in particular and ADR mechanisms in general, thereby contributing to the improvement of Vietnam’s legal framework for dispute resolution.

Mr. Chau Viet Bac – Vice Secretary General of Vietnam International Arbitration Center (VIAC)

Mr. Chau Viet Bac – Vice Secretary General of Vietnam International Arbitration Center (VIAC) – delivered the opening remarks at the Workshop on behalf of VIAC. He noted that the submission and evaluation of evidence in arbitral proceedings are not only key procedural activities that affect the course of dispute resolution, but can also have a direct bearing on the final outcome of the case. From the standpoint of an arbitral institution, Mr. Bac observed that, in an effort to manage the timeline for the submission of evidence, arbitral tribunals and arbitration centers have made significant efforts by employing various dispute management tools and issuing specific directions and procedural guidelines to the parties. However, the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010 currently lacks detailed provisions regulating this matter, as well as sanctions for non-compliance. This legislative gap places considerable reliance on the case management capacity of each arbitral tribunal and on the cooperation and conduct of the disputing parties. As a result, it has inadvertently created challenges in coordinating and effectively managing the timeline for evidence submission. In light of this, Mr. Bac emphasized that improving the effectiveness of time control over evidence submission is not merely a procedural technicality, but an urgent need in the process of improving Vietnam’s arbitration legal framework. He expressed his hope that the Workshop would generate meaningful and practical insights from experts, contributing to the upcoming amendment and supplementation of the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010, thereby enhancing the transparency, fairness, and enforceability of arbitral awards.

Ms. U Thi Bach Yen — Former Judge at the Economic Court of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City and
Arbitrator of Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC)

To provide a comparative perspective on the submission of evidence in court proceedings, Ms. U Thi Bach Yen - Former Judge at the Economic Court of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City and Arbitrator of VIAC - opened the workshop with a presentation titled “Time Limits for Evidence Submission: Practical Issues Arising in Court Dispute Resolution.” Through her presentation, Ms. Yen emphasized that ensuring compliance with statutory deadlines for the collection and submission of evidence remains a significant challenge. This primarily stems from the fact that the current Vietnamese legal framework does not prescribe specific time limits for different types of cases, but instead contains only a single general provision under Article 106 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code. Ms. Yen illustrated her point with concrete examples, noting that, in practice, courts often either gather evidence themselves or request competent authorities or agencies that possess the relevant documents or materials to do so. However, the process of obtaining evidence from third parties is rarely guaranteed to be timely or efficient, often leading to delays beyond the prescribed deadlines. Courts frequently encounter substantial difficulties in determining whether a particular authority or organization actually possesses the requested evidence, and delays in producing such evidence are often accompanied by justifications considered legitimate under the law. To partially address these challenges, Ms. Yến proposed several recommendations, including: (i) Judges should proactively monitor the progress of evidence collection and/or submission; and (ii) Where necessary, the reasons for any delay must be thoroughly examined and properly justified. On this basis, courts and the entities holding the evidence may collaborate to identify feasible solutions, thereby ensuring that evidence is submitted within the shortest possible time frame.

Assoc. Pro. Dr. Vo Tri Hao - Senior Expert, Institute of International and Comparative Law, University of Economics & Law  (UEL), Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City

Following the presentation by Ms. U Thi Bach Yen, which offered the court’s perspective on evidence collection, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vo Tri Hao - Expert at the Institute of International and Comparative Law, University of Economics and Law (UEL), Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, and Arbitrator at the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) - provided an additional viewpoint from the perspectives of both lawyers and arbitrators through his presentation titled: “Managing evidence from two perspectives: Lawyer and Arbitrator.” Drawing on his extensive academic research, Dr. Hao outlined 03 fundamental principles that shape the rules for submission, use, and evaluation of evidence in proceedings, as well as the formulation of evidence management strategies. These principles are: (i) Respect for objective truth; (ii) Expeditious and timely adjudication; and (iii) Legal certainty and peace of mind. According to Dr. Hao, these three principles must be carefully balanced, as the practice of law fundamentally involves finding equilibrium between opposing extremes. However, in practice, when representing their clients, many lawyers often employ certain “tactics” aimed at delaying the submission of evidence or exerting pressure on opposing counsel and the arbitral tribunal. As a result, maintaining the balance among these core principles becomes particularly challenging. To mitigate this situation, Arbitral tribunals are compelled to apply procedural measures and sanctions to effectively control the timeline for proceedings.

Dr. Le Nguyen Gia Thien - Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Law, Researcher Director of the Institute of International & Comparative Law University of Economics and Law (UEL), Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City

Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Minh, Senior Counsel and Head of the Dispute Resolution Department at ACS Legal Vietnam LLC

Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Minh, Senior Counsel and Head of the Dispute Resolution Department at ACS Legal Vietnam LLC, delivered a presentation titled “Imposing sanctions to control evidence submission deadlines: The necessity and recommendations for practical implementation in Vietnam”. According to Ms. Minh, there remains a significant legal gap that has caused numerous arbitration proceedings to either stall or be excessively prolonged beyond the prescribed timelines. This issue stems from the fact that the current legal framework governing arbitration, as well as the procedural rules of arbitral institutions in many jurisdictions,  including Vietnam, do not yet sufficiently regulate the conduct of parties during arbitration proceedings. When commonly used procedural tools such as procedural timetables or procedural orders prove ineffective, arbitral tribunals must adopt more deterrent measures against non-compliant parties. Based on international experience reflected in the arbitration rules of institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and the UNCITRAL Rules, several sanctions may be applied to ensure the efficiency of evidence submission timelines, including: (i) Issuing a written reprimand or warning to the non-complying party; (ii) Making a decision on adverse cost allocation against the non-complying party; (iii) The Arbitral Tribunal refused to consider evidence submitted late. Drawing upon practical experience and international best practices, Ms. Minh proposed detailed recommendations aimed at improving the Vietnamese legal framework on commercial arbitration as well as enhancing the rules of arbitral institutions.  Accordingly, Ms. Minh proposed that the current Vietnamese arbitration law should be amended to grant arbitral tribunals the authority to impose sanctions appropriate to the specific circumstances of each dispute. These include: (i) the power to refuse late-submitted evidence (unless the submitting party has a legitimate reason and can prove the existence of such reason) and (ii) the power to refer the violating lawyer to the bar association for disciplinary action. In parallel, Arbitral institutions should provide more detailed regulations on the deadlines for evidence submission and the applicable sanctions for non-compliance within their arbitration rules. This should also include clear provisions affirming the tribunal’s authority to refuse late-submitted evidence, to allocate costs unfavorably against the non-complying party, and to issue a code of conduct governing the behavior of the parties and their legal representatives throughout the arbitration proceedings.  

📃Event Materials: Please refer HERE

📃Event Photos: View more HERE