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 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 26, 2025
Thailand’s consumer protection authorities have strengthened oversight of residential leasing businesses following numerous complaints about unfair lease terms, including unjustified deposit forfeitures and excessive utility charges. The Contract Committee of Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board issued the Notification of the Contract Committee Re: The Stipulation of Residential Property Leasing as a Contract-Controlled Business B.E. 2568 (2025), published in the Government Gazette on June 6, 2025. The notification becomes effective on September 4, 2025, and repeals the prior notification issued in 2019. The notification prescribes two types of standard residential lease contracts: short-term residential lease contracts (for leases of not more than three years) and long-term residential lease contracts (for leases of more than three years up to 30 years or for the lessee’s lifetime). However, use of these standard contract forms is not compulsory, and parties may use any form as long as the terms do not contradict the notification’s requirements. Expanded Scope The notification expands the scope of enforcement to include any lessor with at least three residential units, while the 2019 notification applies only to businesses leasing five or more residential units. Hotels and dormitory operators are excluded, as they are regulated under other specific laws. Residential lease contracts entered into under the 2019 notification will remain valid and enforceable until the expiration of the contract. Any residential lease contract executed from September 4, 2025, onward must comply with the new notification. The notification also expressly extends its applicability to lease contracts made through online platforms. Electronically executed lease contracts must comply with the required and prohibited terms specified in the notification as well as applicable laws governing electronic transactions in Thailand. Mandatory Terms and Conditions Residential lease contracts must contain clearly legible Thai text no smaller than two millimeters in size and no more
Read More
August 22, 2025
On August 12, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Environment submitted a draft law amending several provisions of the Land Law 2024 (“Draft Amended Land Law” or “Draft”) for government consultation and public comment. The Draft primarily aims to address three controversial issues in Vietnam’s land regime concerning (i) land pricing, (ii) land clearance, and (iii) the allocation of land outside auctions, following policy set out by Resolution 18-NQ/TW and the newly adopted Resolution 69-NQ/TW on land governance modernization. Land pricing is potentially one of the most important areas among the proposed reforms. The Draft, however, has notably not addressed a major concern recently raised by the public: When a project has been allocated or leased land, but the relevant authority has not yet issued the land-price decision, a “supplemental charge” continues to accrue for the entire waiting period. Under current rules, this charge is calculated at 5.4% per year on the ultimately determined land-use fee or land rent, materially shifting project economics and pricing risks to developers or end-buyers. Core Reforms on Land Pricing The Draft Amended Land Law sets out a number of reforms on land pricing, including the following: Land price tables: The Draft maintains provincial land price tables but clarifies the scope of application: They are used to determine land-related financial obligations of land users and compensation when the state recovers land; the government will detail the adjustment coefficient regime, ratios for land-use fee calculation by land type/user/form, and deductible infrastructure costs. Provincial people’s committees will continue to issue land price tables every five years, effective from January 1 of the first year in the cycle, with authority to supplement within the cycle as necessary. In provinces with cadastral maps and digital land price databases, the tables may be established down to the land-parcel level,
Read More
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
Read More