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

July 9, 2018

Non-Competition Clause Upheld by Vietnamese Arbitral Body and Court

Subscribe to Updates

The People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City was recently requested to overturn an arbitral decision by the Vietnam International Arbitration Center (VIAC) relating to a non-competition clause. In the end, however, the court ruled that VIAC’s decision was correct, thus upholding a non-compete clause signed between a company and its employee. The decision represents one of the first times in Vietnam in which the enforcement of a non-compete clause was tested. Although it is not a legally binding precedent, it does show that non-compete clauses can potentially be upheld in Vietnam. In previous cases, decisions have come down differently, holding that the right to work anywhere was a basic right.

In the case in question, an employee of a local company had signed an agreement to not work for a competitor in the same field for a period of 12 months after finishing employment with the employer. However, a few months after the employee parted ways with the company, the employer discovered that the former employee was working for a competitor, in contravention of the non-compete clause. The former employer then filed an action at VIAC, the dispute forum stipulated by the parties in relation to the non-compete clause. If the case was considered a pure labor case, the Ho Chi Minh City Court would have had exclusive jurisdiction. However, the non-compete and non-disclosure agreement were considered as being independent from the labor contract.

VIAC ruled in favor of the employer, and then the employee petitioned the Ho Chi Minh City Court to overturn VIAC’s ruling. The court maintained that when concluding the non-competition agreement, the employer and employee had full civil capacity to enter into the agreement, and such civil agreements should be upheld. The employee was required to pay damages for the breach of the agreement.

This decision represents a strong victory in Vietnam for the freedom-of-contract principle, and gives strong hope that anti-competition agreements, and similar agreements such as nondisclosure agreements, can be successfully enforced in Vietnam.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 29, 2025
On August 15, 2025, Laos’ Immigration Police Department introduced a pilot online arrival registration system for foreign passport holders entering the country. Under the new system, visitors to Laos will be able to register their arrival online up to three days in advance and will be exempt from filling out paper forms at the border. Starting September 1, 2025, online registrations will be accepted at four major international border checkpoints: Wattay International Airport in Vientiane, Luang Prabang International Airport, Pakse International Airport in Champasak Province, and the First Lao-Thai Friendship Bridge linking Vientiane and Nong Khai Province in Thailand. Foreign passport holders arriving in Laos from this date onward will be able to complete the online registration via the official website of the Department of Immigration: http://www.immigration.gov.la/. Upon successful registration, travelers will receive a QR code valid for three days, which must be presented to border authorities upon arrival to verify the registration. During the pilot phase, which is expected to run until early 2026, travelers who have not registered online will still have the option to complete a paper form at the checkpoint. After the pilot phase, the online registration system will become mandatory nationwide, and paper forms will no longer be accepted. This initiative marks a significant step toward modernizing Laos’ immigration procedures. Transitioning from traditional paper-based entry forms to a streamlined digital system will greatly enhance efficiency at border checkpoints. The submission of traveler information ahead of arrival is expected to drastically reduce processing times and alleviate congestion at arrival counters, especially during peak travel periods.
Read More
August 20, 2025
On August 7, 2025, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 219/2025/ND-CP on foreign workers working in Vietnam (Decree 219), introducing substantial reforms to the management of foreign employees. Taking immediate effect upon issuance, and superseding earlier regulations on foreign employees under Decree No. 152/2020/ND-CP as amended by Decree No. 70/2023/ND-CP (collectively referred to as “Decree 152”), Decree 219 sets out clear timeframes and application requirements for work permit issuance, while adopting more flexible policies to support business operations. The key new provisions are as follows: 1. Relaxed Requirements Regarding Job-Posting Under Decree 152, employers were required to follow a complex process to apply for work permits or work permit exemption certificates for foreign employees. This included posting an advertisement for any position the employer wished to fill with a foreign employee on a designated online portal for a given amount of time, to demonstrate that the company tried, but failed, to find a suitable Vietnamese candidate for the position. This job-posting step now only applies when the foreigner will work in Vietnam under a local labor contract. Foreigners coming to Vietnam as intra-corporate transferees (i.e., as secondees) or working under service contracts are exempt. The job-posting period is also reduced from 15 calendar days to five business days. Employers may also now post the advertisements on multiple websites instead of only the online portal of the Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs (now the Ministry of Home Affairs after government restructuring) or the provincial-level employment service center. 2. Work Permit Application Dossier Previously, employers were required to complete a preapproval step, whereby they had to submit a dossier explaining their foreign labor demand that required approval from the labor authority. Once approval for the foreign labor demand was granted, the approval dossier was an integral part of
Read More
August 20, 2025
With the shift in US policy to discourage DEI programs among government and private-sector employers, some companies have been cutting back. But US companies should be cautious in eliminating their DEI programs globally, as some elements of these programs are obligations under local laws in Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia.
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