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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

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
August 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public feedback on a proposed overhaul of the regulatory framework for licensed money changers authorized by the finance minister, under the Exchange Control Act, to buy and sell foreign banknotes separately from commercial banks and specialized financial institutions. The BOT published the draft principles on August 19, 2026, for public consultation, with comments accepted through September 18, 2026. If adopted in its current form, the new framework would substantially raise licensing standards, require existing licensees to undergo a review and upgrade process, temporarily freeze new applications in 2027, and reduce application intake rounds from 2028 onward, with significant implications for both existing operators and prospective new entrants. The overhaul initiative stems from the BOT’s recognition of a need to prevent the use of licensed money changers as channels for financial crime. The stated objectives are to build public confidence, ensure the safety of financial service users, and align the supervisory framework with the current risk profile of the business and evolving market conditions. Upgraded Licensing Standards The BOT intends to significantly revise the licensing framework, including requirements relating to registered capital, branch management, operational standards, and customer transaction limits. Detailed criteria have not yet been released and are expected to be subject to further consultation. All existing licensees will be required to upgrade to meet the new standards and submit evidence of compliance for BOT review on a case-by-case basis. Existing licensees that are unable to satisfy the upgraded requirements may face regulatory consequences, subject to the final framework and BOT review process. Freeze and Reopening The BOT will temporarily stop accepting new license applications throughout 2027 to focus resources on inspecting and upgrading existing money changers. Any party wishing to obtain a new money changer license must submit its application by
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
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable