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​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
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
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More