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​ 

September 23, 2026
Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of
Read More
September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
August 27, 2026
On August 25, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Interior issued an urgent circular letter (No. MorTor 0515.2/Wor 19097) to all provincial governors, introducing enhanced enforcement guidelines for the investigation and prosecution of suspected nominee landownership by foreign nationals. The circular letter builds upon a prior circular letter issued on April 19, 2023 (No. MorTor 0515.2/Wor 7665), which first established the framework for provincial-level investigation committees and interagency cooperation on this issue. Under Thailand’s Land Code, foreign nationals are generally prohibited from owning land. To circumvent this restriction, some foreign nationals have historically used Thai nominees, whether individuals or Thai-registered juristic persons, to hold land on their behalf. Various government enforcement measures have been progressively strengthened in recent years. The new circular letter introduces three key measures: Expanded investigation committees. Provincial authorities must add representatives from specialized investigative agencies (such as local police superintendents) to the existing Fact-Finding and Investigation Committees, giving them broader access to shareholding data, tax records, immigration information, financial records, and evidentiary materials. Proactive screening of juristic persons. Provincial Land Offices are now required to actively screen and flag juristic persons (companies, partnerships, etc.) that show risk indicators of acting as nominees for foreign land ownership. The screening results must be referred to the investigation committees, which will determine whether the entity qualifies as a “foreign national” under the Land Code or was set up to circumvent the law. Two-track enforcement actions. Based on the committee’s findings, enforcement may consist of one or both of the following: Land disposal: If a juristic person is classified as a foreign national under the law, the provincial governor sets a deadline for the entity to dispose of the land under the Land Code. Criminal prosecution: If the entity was established specifically to hold land on behalf of a foreign national in circumvention
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More