You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 25, 2026

A New Dawn for Liquidated Damages in Construction Disputes in Vietnam?

Subscribe to Updates

In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions.

Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam.

While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam.

What’s New?

Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added):

“Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.”

This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2.

Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the extent of the breaches. This language suggests a narrowing effect on enforceability: Predetermined damages may only be upheld where they are demonstrably linked to the specific breached obligations and proportionate to the degree of the breaches. As a result, predetermined damages agreed by the parties may still be vulnerable to challenge if they are perceived as insufficiently connected to the relevant obligation or excessive in light of the breach.

Thus, while Article 86.2 represents a positive step toward statutory recognition of liquidated damages, the lack of definitional clarity and the correspondence requirement introduce continued uncertainty as to their enforceability, which will likely be clarified only through future judicial and arbitral practice.

Recommendations for Businesses

Contracting parties to construction contracts may now be more comfortable including liquidated damages clauses, given their express recognition under the 2025 Law on Construction. However, as the new law will not come into effect until July 1, 2026, it is too early to assess the practical application of Article 86.2. To mitigate the potential ambiguities and uncertainties discussed above, businesses may consider the following:

  1. Liquidated damages clauses should be carefully tailored on a contract-by-contract basis to align with Article 86.2 of the new law. Standard templates should be revisited to ensure that any pre-agreed compensation amounts are clearly linked to identifiable obligations or the potential level of breach, rather than framed in broad or generic terms detached from specific performance risks.
  2. There remains a risk that the enforceability of a liquidated damages clause may be challenged if it cannot be demonstrated that the agreed damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the extent of the breach. Accordingly, having readily available evidence will be critical. Detailed and contemporaneous records of progress, delays, cost impacts, resulting losses, and mitigation efforts are likely to be decisive, not only in establishing actual loss but also in substantiating the reasonableness and proportionality of any agreed damages.
  3. The agreed-upon liquidated damages amounts should also be realistic, reflecting a considered assessment of foreseeable risks, and the parties should avoid treating such figures as a mere bargaining convenience. Anticipating the likely consequences of nonperformance and anchoring the agreed amounts to those risks will reduce the likelihood of judicial or arbitral adjustment or refusal. Where parties lack sufficient experience, early engagement of technical or cost experts may assist in strengthening contractual positioning and enhancing the defensibility of pre-agreed damages claims.

In all cases, parties are advised to consult Vietnamese legal counsel when drafting construction contracts or managing disputes to ensure compliance with the evolving legal framework under the 2025 Law on Construction.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Real Estate

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
July 3, 2026
Thailand will keep its reduced government fees for property sale and mortgage registration in place for another year. Two Ministry of Interior notifications, issued following a cabinet resolution on June 30, 2026, and published in the Government Gazette on July 1, 2026, extend the previously reduced fee levels through June 30, 2027. The reduced registration fees apply to the sale and mortgage of the same property types covered in prior versions of the scheme: detached houses, semidetached houses, row houses, commercial buildings, land transferred together with such buildings, and condominium units. To be eligible for the reduced fees, the purchase price, the officially assessed value, and the mortgage amount must each not exceed THB 7 million, and the buyer must be a Thai individual. The reduced registration fees for eligible sales and mortgages are calculated as follows: Sale: 0.01% of the official assessed value (reduced from standard rate of 2%) Mortgage: 0.01% of the mortgage amount (reduced from standard rate of 1%) The reduced mortgage registration fee applies only if the mortgage is registered at the same time as the sale of the property.
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More