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

March 5, 2026

A Smarter Forum? The Specialized Court at Vietnam’s International Financial Center

Subscribe to Updates

Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026.

Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court

The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC.

The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus.

Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court

The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following:

  • Disputes arising from investment and business activities.
  • Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards.
  • Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration.
  • Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court).

Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC.

In the event of a jurisdictional conflict between the Specialized Court and the People’s Court system, the chief justice of the Specialized Court has the authority to determine which court has jurisdiction over the case. Any complaint against such determination will be resolved by the Supreme People’s Court, whose decision is final. However, to date, no implementing guidance (in the form of resolutions, decrees, or circulars) has been issued by the Supreme People’s Court in relation to this mechanism. Accordingly, the practical application of these provisions remains subject to further official guidance.

Distinguishing Features of the Specialized Court

Although the Specialized Court remains subject, to some extent, to the Law on the Organization of the People’s Courts and other relevant legislation, it exhibits several notable distinguishing features, including the following:

  • Statute of limitations: The statute of limitations for initiating proceedings before the Specialized Court is generally six years from the date on which the event giving rise to the procedural proceedings occurs, which is longer than the limitation period applicable under the ordinary court procedure for cases of a similar nature falling within the jurisdiction of the Specialized Court.
  • Finality of appellate judgment: Unlike ordinary judicial proceedings, judgments rendered by the Court of Appeal of the Specialized Court are final and are not subject to cassation or retrial.
  • Language of proceedings: The language used in proceedings and judgments or decisions of the Specialized Court is English, or English accompanied by a Vietnamese translation.
  • Electronic proceedings: The entire judicial process, from the filing of the statement of claim to the issuance of judgments or decisions, may be conducted entirely through electronic means.
  • Separate procedural rules: In addition to Vietnamese law, the Specialized Court is allowed to apply its own procedural rules, promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court, to govern the adjudication of cases. (At present, these procedural rules have not yet been issued and are still under consideration, with expected completion before December 31, 2026.)
  • Representation by foreign lawyers: Parties are permitted to authorize foreign lawyers holding valid practicing certificates issued by competent foreign authorities or organizations to act as their representatives before the Specialized Court.
  • Composition of the adjudicating body: Cases are adjudicated by a single judge, unless the parties request otherwise or the case is of a complex nature, in which case a panel of three judges will be constituted. Notably, People’s Jurors and the People’s Procuracy do not participate in the adjudication or supervision of proceedings before the Specialized Court.
  • Eligibility of judges: Foreign and Vietnamese individuals are eligible for appointment as judges of the Specialized Court, subject to compliance with the conditions prescribed under the Law on the Specialized Court. Foreign individuals must be current or former foreign judges, or reputable lawyers or experts with good moral character and relevant expertise in investment and business law, with at least 10 years of experience in adjudicating or resolving investment and business-related matters. They must also have sufficient English proficiency to conduct proceedings before the Specialized Court, and be under 75 years of age with adequate health to perform their duties. The participation of foreign judges is expected to enhance the effectiveness and sophistication in handling cross-border matters, as well as to reinforce the neutrality and international credibility of the court system, thereby increasing its attractiveness to international investors.

Outlook

Although the Law on the Specialized Court has been effective since January 1, 2026, many related issues, such as court fees, litigation costs, enforcement mechanisms, and the organization of supporting bodies, remain under development, and are expected to be determined within 2026.

Collectively, the new features mark a clear departure from Vietnam’s traditional court adjudication model. The Specialized Court offers a modern, internationally aligned dispute resolution mechanism that simplifies procedures, shortens resolution timelines, and is particularly conducive to business and foreign investment within the IFC.

Related Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​

February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
Read More
February 25, 2026
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
Read More
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
Read More
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More