VIAC Arbitration for International Trade Dispute

We commenced VIAC arbitration on behalf of the German supplier, claiming the outstanding USD 1.5M plus contractual interest and the costs of arbitration. The contract's choice of VIAC arbitration in English was decisive: the proceedings ran in a language all parties could fully engage with, the procedure was crisp, and the tribunal was constituted within six weeks.

We assembled an evidentiary case across three layers. First, technical: the equipment's continuous monitoring data, the calibration records, and independent expert testimony on the operating parameters during the periods of asserted defect. Second, contractual: the precise specification of the equipment's performance envelope and the provisions allocating risk for operation outside that envelope. Third, commercial: the parties' communications during the warranty period, which showed no contemporary defect complaints — the issues were raised only as the final payment came due.

The tribunal of three arbitrators included a German engineering expert (party-appointed by claimant), a Vietnamese commercial-arbitration specialist (party-appointed by respondent), and a Singapore-based barrister as president. The merits hearing in HCMC ran four days, with technical expert evidence, witness testimony from both sides' commissioning teams, and submissions on contract construction. We produced operational data covering the entire 24-month warranty period — a level of evidence the buyer had not anticipated.

The VIAC tribunal issued a unanimous award six weeks after the merits hearing: full payment of USD 1.5M plus contractual interest of approximately USD 75K, plus the costs of the arbitration (around USD 60K) and 80% of the supplier's counsel fees (approximately USD 240K). The total award was paid voluntarily by the buyer within 60 days, avoiding any need for enforcement proceedings.

Notably, the long-term commercial relationship was preserved. The buyer retained the equipment, continued to operate it, and the supplier subsequently provided routine after-sales service and a software upgrade. Both parties learned from the dispute: the supplier improved its contract drafting on operating-envelope risk allocation; the buyer improved its internal commissioning and operations data review. A subsequent supply contract between the same parties was concluded in 2024.