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​ 

March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
Read More
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
Read More
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