The dispute arose from a Convertible Loan Agreement dated 15 May 2014 between Asia G (“AGI”) and M Investment Joint Stock Company (“Company M”), secured by personal guarantees from Ms. Le Thi My Ch and Ms. Vo Thi N. Disputes were submitted to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) under Vietnamese governing law with the seat in Singapore and English as the language of the proceedings. On 2 May 2019, the Sole Arbitrator issued an award, holding Company M, Ms. Ch and Ms. N jointly and severally liable to AGI for repayment of the USD 1,000,000 principal loan, accrued interest and various costs. Following AGI’s petition in October 2019, the Court of Ho Chi Minh City granted recognition and enforcement of the award (Decision No. 215/2020/QDKDTM-ST), affirming the validity of the SIAC award under the New York Convention 1958.
BACKGROUND
Case Summary
On 15 May 2014, AGI and Company M entered into a Convertible Loan Agreement for a loan facility of up to USD 3,000,000.
The loan was secured by a Guarantee Agreement dated 24 June 2014, under which Ms. Le Thi My Ch and Ms. Vo Thi N committed to being jointly and severally liable for all of Company M’s payment obligations.
Notably, both the Convertible Loan Agreement and the Guarantee Agreements were governed by Vietnamese law, the parties opted for SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore, with English as the language of the arbitral proceedings.
Proceedings at SIAC
After the initial disbursement, AGI identified multiple breaches of the Convertible Loan Agreement and demanded immediate repayment in June 2016. Due to continued non-payment by Company M and the guarantors, AGI commenced SIAC arbitration on 6 June 2017.
On 2 May 2019, the Sole Arbitrator appointed by SIAC issued an award upholding AGI’s claim in full. The award held Company M, Ms. Ch and Ms. N to be jointly and severally liable to pay and reimburse AGI the following amounts: the loan principal, accrued interest, enforcement interest, arbitration costs, and legal costs.
Under Rule 32.11 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules (6th Edition), the award is final, binding and enforceable from the date of issuance.
Recognition and enforcement proceedings at the Court of Ho Chi Minh City
AGI filed its application for recognition and enforcement and necessary supporting documents with the Court of Ho Chi Minh City, which was docketed as Case No. 221/2019/KDTM-ST on 22 October 2019.
While the award debtors were largely absent, only legal counsel representing Ms. Ch, one of the award debtors, appeared at the hearing and raised two primary objections:
- The arbitral tribunal failed to join Ms. N’s husband as a party to the arbitral proceedings; and
- The tribunal failed to clarify the nature of a USD 13,000 cost item awarded in the final award.
After careful consideration, the Court rejected these objections and granted AGI’s application based on principal reasons:
- Compliance with documentation: AGI submitted all required supporting documents, which were duly legalized and translated in accordance with Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015 (“CPC 2015”).
- Arbitrability of the dispute: The dispute arose from a Convertible Loan Agreement intended for business purposes, thereby constituting a commercial dispute falling under the jurisdiction of arbitration per Article 2.1 of the Vietnamese Law on Commercial Arbitration.
- Legal basis for recognition and enforcement of the award: As both Singapore and Viet Nam are Contracting States to the 1958 New York Convention (“NYC 1958”), the SIAC award rendered in Singapore satisfied the statutory requirements for recognition and enforcement under Article 424.1 (a) of the CPC 2015.
- Validity of arbitral procedure: The Court confirmed that the arbitral proceedings complied with the agreed rules and applicable law. With a valid arbitration agreement and proper notification to all parties, the award became final and binding upon issuance pursuant to Rule 32.11 of the SIAC Rules (6th edition).
- Burden of proof: The Court referred to Article V.1 of the NYC 1958, under which it is for the award debtor to prove that the award falls within one of the grounds for refusal. In this case, since the award debtors remained absent and provided no evidence of refusal grounds under Article 459 of the CPC 2015, their position was untenable.
- Judicial non-intervention: The Court held that objections of counsel for Ms. Ch (concerning the non-joinder of Ms. N’s husband and the breakdown of the USD 13,000 cost item) related to the substance/merits of the case. Under Article 458.4 of the CPC 2015, the Court may not re-examine the merits of the arbitral decision but may only review the conditions for recognition.
In light of the above considerations, the Court of Ho Chi Minh City issued Decision No. 215/2020/QDKDTM-ST, granting AGI’s application in its entirety, recognized and permitted the enforcement in Viet Nam of the SIAC arbitral award dated 2 May 2019.
OUR COMMENT
Burden of proof
Pursuant to Article IV.1 of the NYC 1958, as incorporated into Vietnamese law under Article 453.1 of the CPC 2015, an applicant seeking recognition of a foreign award must satisfy an initial evidentiary burden by submitting two core documents:
- The duly authenticated original arbitral award or a duly certified copy thereof; and
- The original arbitration agreement referred to in Article II of the NYC 1958 or a duly certified copy thereof.
These documents are of fundamental importance in recognition and enforcement proceedings. The arbitration agreement establishes the jurisdictional foundation of the arbitral tribunal and evidences the parties’ consent to resolve their dispute through arbitration. Meanwhile, the arbitral award represents the outcome of the arbitral process that is now sought to be enforced. Together, they constitute the essential legal basis upon which the court can assess the request for recognition and enforcement within the limited scope of review.
As a general principle of procedural law, the burden of proof ordinarily rests with the asserting party. However, the NYC 1958 adopts a distinctive burden-shifting mechanism that departs from conventional civil litigation.
Under Article IV, the applicant bears only an initial evidentiary burden: to demonstrate the formal validity of the request by producing the requisite authenticated original or certified copies and certified translation of arbitration agreement and arbitral award. Once this is satisfied, a legal presumption of enforceability is established, the burden of proof shifts decisively to the award debtor.
Pursuant to Article V.1 of the NYC 1958 and echoed in Article 459.1 of the CPC 2015, any party resisting recognition and enforcement must adduce concrete evidence falling within one of the exhaustively enumerated grounds for refusal. This allocation reflects the Convention’s pro-arbitration policy, emphasizing the finality and enforceability of arbitral awards. Absent such proof, recognition and enforcement follow as a matter of course, ensuring that the award creditor is not unfairly burdened with re-proving its case at the enforcement stage.
In the present case, the court applied this framework with surgical precision. By failing to appear and failing to adduce evidence, the award debtors essentially forfeited their opportunity to challenge the award. Their procedural silence led to the Court granting the application in its entirety – a reminder that in enforcement proceedings, silence is not golden; it is a waiver of defense.
Judicial non-intervention in arbitral proceedings
The principle of judicial non-intervention constitutes a cornerstone of modern arbitration law. Under this principle, national courts are confined to a limited supervisory role and must refrain from interfering with the arbitral tribunal’s decision-making process or reassessing the merits of the dispute.
At the international level, this principle is clearly reflected in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, as amended in 2006). Article 5 of the Model Law establishing a strict framework of minimal judicial intervention, while Articles 34 and 36 limit judicial review to specific and exhaustively enumerated grounds for setting aside or refusing recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, none of which allows for a review of the merits.
This principle has been expressly enshrined in Article 458.4 of the CPC 2015, which mandates the court “shall not re-examine the substance of the dispute” but is limited to assessing statutory grounds for refusal.
In this specific case, the Court’s rejection of the debtors’ objections regarding the non-joinder of the husband and the breakdown of legal costs was a textbook application of this principle. By refusing to let the enforcement stage devolve into an appeal of the arbitral award, the Court reaffirmed its role as a procedural gatekeeper, ensuring the finality and efficiency of the arbitral process.
In Decision No. 215/2020/QDKDTM-ST, the award debtors raised two notable objections:
- The arbitral tribunal failed to join Ms. N’s husband as a party to the arbitral proceedings; and
- The tribunal failed to clarify the nature of a USD 13,000 cost item awarded in the final award.
Regarding the USD 13,000, the Court correctly relied on Article 458.4 of the CPC 2015. Any assessment of the reasonableness or breakdown of costs falls squarely within the substantive merits of the dispute. By refusing to entertain this, the Court remained faithful to the principle of non-review of the merits.
The most complex issue was whether excluding Ms. N’s husband violated due process or fundamental principles of Vietnamese law. Since the enforcement of the guarantee obligation of Ms. N will nevertheless affect the interest of her husband (as a result of the joint property regime of wife and husband set forth in law on marriage and family), there may be an argument that the non-engagement of this party during the arbitration proceedings falls into the scope of fundamental principles as prescribed in Article 3 of Civil Code. However, as mentioned earlier, the debtor seems to be failing to fulfill the burden of proof during the proceedings to recognize and enforce the award before the Court when advancing these arguments, the Court has no valid justification to consider this position more thoroughly and decide to grant the decision to recognize and enforce the award.
The Court’s rejection was fully justified. It demonstrates a rigorous, principled application of judicial non-intervention, showing deference to the tribunal’s determination of proper parties and respect for its finality. This decision reinforces Vietnam’s commitment to international arbitration standards.
This article aims to furnish our clients and contacts with general information on the relevant topic for reference purposes only, without creating any duty of care on the part of ANHISA. The information presented herein is not intended to serve, nor should it be considered, as a substitute for legal or other professional advice.
ANHISA LLC AND OUR EXPERTISE
ANHISA LLC is a boutique law firm specializing in Dispute Resolution, Shipping and Aviation. Being the leading lawyers in various fields of law, our qualified, experienced, and supportive team of lawyers know how to best proceed with a case against or in relation to Vietnamese parties and are well equipped to provide clients with cost-effective and innovative solutions to their problems.
Regarding dispute resolution, we have represented Vietnamese and foreign clients in the resolution of disputes involving maritime, construction, commercial and civil matters. Our lawyers are well-equipped to offer services on a wide range of disputes and conflicts, whether cross-border or purely domestic, to appear before any Judges or Arbitral Tribunals. The firm is prepared to assist clients in designing the appropriate dispute resolution procedure to help resolve conflicts as efficiently and cost effectively as possible, which may involve combining elements of mediation and other methods such as arbitration.