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

May 13, 2021

Case Study: The Enforceability of Asymmetric Dispute Resolution Clauses in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

An asymmetric dispute resolution clause is one that is constructed to limit the right to dispute resolution of one party to, for example, a particular jurisdiction or dispute resolution method, while giving the other party or parties the right to flexibly choose between different options. Although this type of clause would clearly favor the party with the right to choose between options, by providing an effective risk management mechanism, the favor will only apply in countries which recognize the validity and enforceability of asymmetric clauses.

In Vietnam, the validity and enforceability of such clauses has been an open question due to a lack of statutory guidance. To shed some light on this matter, we can assess an ongoing case where a Vietnamese court has considered the enforceability of an asymmetric dispute resolution clause.

The dispute in question arose between a Thai company and a Vietnamese company in relation to a distribution contract. The Thai company filed a civil suit with a Vietnamese court to seek remedies for a breach of contract committed by the Vietnamese party. While the dispute clause of the contract provides that the Vietnamese party must submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of Hong Kong to settle all relevant disputes, there is no similar requirement for the Thai company. Moreover, the laws of Hong Kong are the governing law of the contract.

Initially, the Vietnamese court decided not to accept the suit, with its view supported by the peer procuracy’s opinion that the dispute clause implied that the Thai company had chosen the courts of Hong Kong to handle any relevant disputes that might arise. Consequently, the clause excluded the jurisdiction of Vietnamese courts.

Disagreeing with the above legal perspective, the Thai company filed a complaint against the Vietnamese court’s decision. In particular, the Thai company reasoned that the clause does not expressly indicate a choice of court, but only expresses that the Thai company would not challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of Hong Kong if any legal proceedings are commenced there under the Vietnamese party’s request. In other words, when any disputes arise, the Vietnamese party can only pursue legal proceedings before the courts of Hong Kong while the Thai party could choose to pursue legal proceedings before any other competent courts, such as courts in Thailand or Vietnam, and is not required to choose the courts of Hong Kong.

Given this, the dispute resolution clause in the contract of this case could be deemed an asymmetric dispute resolution clause where the favored party (the Thai company) can flexibly initiate legal proceedings before any competent courts that may be determined under private international law to have jurisdiction over disputes arising from or out of this commercial contract.

In consideration of the significant potential risk of non-enforcement of a Thai judgment in Vietnam, where the defendant is based, the Thai company wished to instead settle the dispute in a Vietnamese court in hopes that the enforcement steps would be much easier if they win the case. Further, based on certain facts of the case, the Thai company successfully proved that it had no intention to choose Hong Kong courts as the dispute resolution forum during the establishment and implementation of the contract.

Finally, the tribunal handling the complaint upheld the Thai company’s arguments and further concluded that the legal perspectives of both the first-instance court and the procuracy were inappropriate and groundless.

Although there is still not sufficient supporting practice to definitively conclude that Vietnamese courts recognize the validity and enforceability of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, and there is still no statutory guidance, the fact that a Vietnamese court accepted the dispute above for settlement suggests that there is certainly a chance for an asymmetric dispute resolution clause in a commercial agreement to be valid and enforced in Vietnam.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 19, 2025
On January 1, 2025, the Department of Business Development (DBD) in Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce implemented new stringent corporate registration screening measures in collaboration with several other government agencies to prevent entities from opening corporate mule accounts to commit criminal activities in Thailand. The DBD’s Order of the Office of Central Company and Partnership Registration No. 3/2024 stipulates a new method for registering the establishment of partnerships and limited companies for people who have been involved in underlying crimes or who are owners of bank accounts that are being used for underlying crime, as per the notification of the Anti-Online Scam Operation Center (AOC) to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) and the collated AMLO list of such persons. The order establishes the following key requirements: Managing partners and directors of partnerships and limited companies, respectively, whose names have been listed by the AMLO as a person who is involved in an underlying offense, or as the owner of a bank account being used for the underlying offense, must appear before the registrar in person. The concerned persons cited on the AMLO list must provide valid documentation of their identity to the DBD registrar (e.g., national identification card, government official identification card, government or state enterprise employee identification card, alien identification card, passport, document used in lieu of a travel document, or other similar documents with photo identification). This collaboration between the DBD and various relevant government agencies aims to eradicate the problem of fraudsters using mule accounts set up under legally established entities to deceive the public. It also seeks to enhance checks and screening of corporate mule accounts that are used to carry out criminal activities such as money laundering or cybercrime. These actions are part of the Thai government’s broader policy to suppress economic crimes. For more
Read More
March 13, 2025
Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance has released a draft Decree on Tax Administration for E-Commerce and Digital Platforms (“Draft Decree”), introducing significant tax compliance obligations that could reshape how digital platforms, and individuals and business households conducting business through the platforms, manage their tax responsibilities. Aimed at strengthening tax enforcement, the Draft Decree requires e-commerce and digital platforms to actively track and withhold taxes from business households and individual sellers, and remit payments to tax authorities. While it has not yet been promulgated, the Draft Decree is expected to take effect on April 1, 2025, leaving platforms with a limited window to prepare for compliance. Who Is Affected by the New Tax Rules? The Draft Decree significantly broadens the tax administration scope beyond traditional e-commerce platforms to cover a wide range of digital economy participants. Specifically, the Draft Decree places direct tax-related responsibilities on two major categories (collectively, “Regulated Operators”): E-commerce and digital platforms with payment functions (e.g., platforms that process buyer payments via e-wallets, bank transfers, cards, or cash-on-delivery); and Other digital-economy players that enable e-commerce transactions, including (i) intermediary service platforms connecting service providers with consumers, (ii) digital content platforms, (iii) online advertising providers, (iv) cloud computing and data storage providers, (v) social media platforms engaged in business activities (e.g., live-stream, in-app transactions), (vi) online education, gaming, and digital entertainment platforms generating revenue from digital transactions, (vii) Vietnam-based partners of foreign digital service providers facilitating local payments for overseas platforms, and (viii) intermediary payment service providers handling financial transactions for e-commerce activities. Under the Draft Decree, Regulated Operators will be required to track, report, and enforce tax compliance for both resident and nonresident individuals and households conducting business through their platforms (“Sellers”). What New Tax Obligations Do Platforms Face? Onshore platforms For the first time, Regulated Operators will
Read More
March 13, 2025
Licensing specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok have contributed the Thailand chapter to the newly issued Licensing 2025, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Panoramic to licensing in various jurisdictions around the world. The Thailand chapter covers the following topics: Laws and licensing arrangements: Unfair Contract Terms Act, Trade Competition Act, pre-contractual disclosure, registration of international licensing, implied obligations, Civil and Commercial Code, Trademark Act, Patent Act, Trade Secrets Act Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, security interests, proceedings against third parties, sublicensing, jointly owned IP, first to file, scope of patent protection, trade secrets, copyright Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, legal requirements, user restrictions Royalties and payments, currency conversion, and taxes: Relevant legislation, restrictions, taxation of foreign licensors Competition law issues: Restrictions on trade, legal restrictions, and IP-related court rulings Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages Termination: Right to terminate, impact of termination Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee or licensor bankruptcy Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforceability, injunctive relief, contractual waivers The Thailand chapter was authored by Alan Adcock, partner, and Kasama Sriwatanakul, counsel, both in the Thailand regulatory affairs team. The full Thailand chapter is available below as a PDF. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Vietnam chapter to Licensing 2025. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2025 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
March 6, 2025
On February 18, 2025, the Thai Senate approved an amendment to the Act on the Establishment of and Procedures for the Tax Court. This follows the July 2024 approval by the Thai cabinet and subsequent preparation of supporting secondary legislation. This important amendment to procedural law, once it takes effect, will extend the exclusive jurisdictional powers of the Tax Court to all criminal tax, customs, and excise tax claims in addition to the court’s existing jurisdiction over all such civil claims. The amendment, while now formally approved by the legislature, is awaiting the king’s signature and will take effect 180 days after its publication in the Government Gazette. Based upon its projected publication date, the amendment will likely take effect by the end of the third quarter of this year. This development is set to offer a more sophisticated Tax Court litigation process for highly specialized and often complex criminal tax and customs claims, something with which Thailand’s traditional criminal courts have struggled. It also ensures that all tax and customs matters are adjudicated before the same court, saving time, party costs, and judicial resources. This appears likely to result in more consistent adjudication of criminal tax and customs disputes, a benefit for the Thai government and party litigants alike. Any ongoing criminal tax and customs claims already commenced with the respective criminal courts on the date on which the amendment becomes effective will remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of those criminal courts. The Tax Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over all other claims. This important legislative change offers those managing or otherwise facing civil and/or criminal Thai tax or customs disputes the opportunity to more effectively plan and execute a uniform defense strategy before a single, qualified forum.
Read More