Commercial disputes can be resolved through four core mechanisms:

• negotiation involves direct discussions between the parties with the aim of reaching a mutually acceptable settlement. It is typically the first step and allows parties to preserve business relationships while maintaining full control over the outcome;
• mediation involves a neutral third-party acting as a mediator to facilitate and assist the disputing parties in reaching a mutually acceptable solution, with the aim of resolving the dispute amicably;
• arbitration involves an arbitral tribunal, as an independent third party selected by the disputing parties, that renders a binding decision to resolve the dispute and bring the conflict to an end; and
• litigation (court) involves a judicial body, acting in the name of State authority, that issues a binding judgment that the parties are legally obligated to comply with.

In practice, arbitration is an increasingly popular method for resolving commercial disputes, particularly in cross-border transactions due to its neutrality, flexibility and confidentiality. While court litigation remains the traditional and familiar option in Vietnam.

The choice of dispute resolution mechanism is primarily determined by party agreement. However, both legislation and practice indicate that certain mechanisms are more commonly associated with specific types of disputes.

• Negotiation and mediation apply to all types of disputes. Negotiation is the first method used to resolve disputes, helping the parties clarify conflicting issues. Mediation is, in certain cases, a mandatory procedural requirement, particularly in labour, land disputes and divorce disputes, subject to statutory exceptions.
• Arbitration is mostly used in commercial, investment, construction, real estate and financial disputes. It is especially prevalent in international commercial disputes where parties seek a neutral forum and confidentiality.
• Litigation applies to disputes falling within the jurisdiction of the courts as provided under Articles 26, 28, 30 and 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure 2015.

A Shift Towards Arbitration and ADR

There is a clear shift toward arbitration and other ADR mechanisms, driven by Vietnam’s increasing integration into the global economy. Businesses are increasingly favouring and becoming more familiar with arbitration for dispute resolution due to its speed, flexibility and confidentiality compared to traditional court proceedings.

VIAC announced that in 2024, they handled 478 cases according to the statistical introduction and the detailed data recorded 475 cases, both indicating that 2024 was a record year for the number of cases.

Emergence of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)

Technological advancements have created new ways to access justice and resolve disputes, including ODR, smart contracts and algorithmic decision-making tools. In the context of rapidly growing e-commerce and cross-border transactions, ODR is increasingly used as an effective alternative or complement to traditional mechanisms, reducing time and costs for disputing parties.

Growing Complexity of Disputes

Disputes are becoming increasingly complex, international and interconnected due to globalisation, supply chain disruptions and geopolitical factors. Many disputes involve multiple parties, jurisdictions and legal systems across borders. As a result, dispute resolution increasingly requires sophisticated legal strategies and greater coordination across different legal frameworks.

ESG-Driven Disputes on the Rise

ESG considerations are increasingly shaping disputes in Vietnam, particularly in environmental compliance, sustainability commitments and corporate disclosures. Disputes involving pollution, land use and climate obligations are becoming more frequent, often involving regulators, communities and foreign investors. This trend is likely to strengthen as Vietnam aligns with international frameworks such as the Paris Agreement and advances its net-zero agenda.

Growth in Energy and Infrastructure Disputes

Vietnam’s expanding energy sector, especially in renewables, is driving more disputes over PPAs, tariffs, project delays and regulatory changes. The transition from feed-in tariffs to competitive mechanisms has increased legal uncertainty, particularly around risk allocation and payment security. Cross-border arbitration is also on the rise, supported by investment protections under agreements such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the EU–Vietnam Free Trade Agreement.

Limitation periods are governed by the Civil Code 2015 and refer to the time limit within which an entity may initiate legal action to request a court to resolve a civil case to protect its lawful rights or interests; upon expiry, such right is lost.

The limitation period for contractual disputes is generally 03 years from the date on which the entitled party knows or ought to have known that its lawful rights and interests have been infringed (Article 429 of the Civil Code 2015).

Limitation periods for specific types of disputes are set out in the relevant sector-specific laws. For commercial disputes, the limitation period is 02 years from the date of infringement, except as provided in Article 237.1(e) of the Commercial Law 2005.

Vietnam’s court structure has recently undergone significant institutional reform as of 01/07/2025. Organisation of People’s Courts in Vietnam includes:

• Supreme People’s Court;
• Provincial People’s Courts;
• Regional People’s Courts;
• Specialised Courts at International Financial Centres (Specialised Courts); and
• Military Courts (central, military zones and equivalents and regional courts).

Vietnam does not recognise “pre-action conduct” as a formal legal term and generally does not impose strict pre-action protocols as seen in common law jurisdictions. In principle, civil proceedings do not require mandatory pre-action steps before filing a claim. However, mandatory conciliation is required in certain categories of disputes as a condition precedent to litigation, particularly:

• land use rights disputes (Article 235 Land Law 2024; Article 192.1(b) Civil Procedure Code 2015; Resolution 04/2017/NQ-HDTP); and
• individual labour disputes (Article 188 Labour Code 2019).

The main stages of court proceedings in Vietnam are as follows.

• Filing of claim: The claimant files a statement of claim with supporting evidence to the competent court (in person, by post or online). The claim must meet statutory form and content requirements.
• Assignment and preliminary review: Within three working days, a judge is assigned; within five working days, the judge reviews and may request amendments, accept the case, transfer it or return the claim.
• Acceptance of case: If jurisdiction is confirmed, the court notifies the claimant to pay an advance court fee (if applicable). The case is accepted upon submission of the fee receipt (or immediately if exempt).
• Notification of acceptance: Within three working days from acceptance, the court notifies all relevant parties and the procuracy.
• Mediation: Conducted during the pre-trial stage on a voluntary basis, except for non-mediable cases. Successful mediation leads to a recognised settlement; otherwise, the case proceeds.
• Pre-trial preparation: Typically, one to four months from acceptance (extendable). The judge collects evidence, clarifies issues and may issue decisions (eg, suspend, terminate or bring to trial).
• First-instance trial: The court opens a hearing and issues a judgment. Parties may appeal within 15 days; otherwise, the judgment becomes legally effective.

As outlined above, the time from filing a claim to obtaining a first-instance judgment typically exceeds six months. However, in commercial practice, the gap between statutory timelines and real-world case progression can be material.

According to Article 15.2 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, court proceedings are public. However, the Court conducts closed hearings in special cases to protect state secrets, national customs and traditions, minors or professional, business, personal and family secrets upon legitimate request of the parties.

Interim relief is available under Article 114 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015 and includes a wide range of measures aimed at preserving assets, preventing harm and maintaining the status quo.

In commercial practice, the most relevant measures include asset distraint, freezing of bank accounts or property, prohibitions on asset transfers and orders requiring or restraining certain acts. In specific circumstances, courts may also suspend contractual or employment-related decisions, restrict a party from leaving Vietnam or take other urgent measures as provided by law.

Interim relief is commonly sought, particularly in disputes involving asset preservation or risk of dissipation. Courts may grant one or multiple measures with immediate effect. Applicants are generally required to provide security and may be liable for damages if the request is found to be unjustified.

Pursuant to Article 292 of the Commercial Law 2005, 07 types of final relief may apply to a litigant in commercial litigation, including:

• specific performance of contracts;
• fines for breaches;
• forcible payment of damages;
• suspension of performance of contracts;
• stoppage of performance of contracts;
• cancellation of contracts; and
• other remedies agreed by the parties are not contrary to fundamental principles of Vietnamese law, international treaties to which Vietnam is a party and international commercial practices.

Damages are assessed in accordance with Article 585 of the Civil Code 2015 and as guided by Resolution No. 02/2022/NQ-HDTP:

“Actual damage” means damage that has occurred and can be converted into money at the time of compensation settlement. Such damage includes:

• physical damage is the identifiable actual physical loss of the aggrieved person, including property damage that is unrecoverable; reasonable costs to prevent, limit or remedy the damage; actual income that is lost or reduced because property, health, life, honour, dignity, reputation, rights and other legitimate interests are infringed; and
• mental damage is a mental loss caused by infringing upon the life, health, honour, dignity, reputation, rights and other personal interests of the aggrieved person or his or her relatives and needs to be compensated for that loss.

Damage arising after the time of the first settlement of compensation shall be determined at the time of the subsequent settlement of compensation at the request of the aggrieved person.

Arbitration is increasingly prevalent in Vietnam, particularly for higher-value and cross-border disputes. Its use has grown steadily, with institutions such as the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre reporting rising caseloads and broader sectoral coverage.

In practice, arbitration is most common in disputes involving the sale of goods, construction, real estate and financial transactions. Recent VIAC data indicate that the sale of goods accounts for approximately 25% of cases, followed by construction (22%), real estate (14%) and finance (11%). It is particularly favoured in transactions involving foreign parties, where neutrality, confidentiality and enforceability under the New York Convention are key considerations.

While court litigation remains widely used, arbitration has become the preferred forum for complex and internationally connected disputes.

Under Article 2 of the LCA, arbitration applies to:

• commercial disputes;
• disputes where at least one party engages in commercial activities; or
• other disputes permitted by law, provided a valid arbitration agreement exists in accordance with Articles 5 and 16.

Apart from these disputes, all other types of disputes cannot be referred to arbitration.

In addition, courts may retain jurisdiction in certain circumstances, including where an arbitral award or settlement is set aside, arbitral proceedings are terminated or the arbitration agreement is invalid or incapable of performance.

Arbitral tribunals must assess the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement at the outset. If the agreement is invalid or cannot be performed, the tribunal must terminate the proceedings.

Arbitration offers several practical advantages in Vietnam, particularly for commercial disputes.

Flexibility

It provides greater procedural flexibility, allowing parties to agree on the tribunal’s seat, language and composition and typically avoids multiple levels of appeal, making it more time-efficient than court litigation. The ability to appoint arbitrators with relevant technical or industry expertise is a key benefit in complex disputes.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality remains a major advantage, as proceedings are conducted in private, which is particularly important for commercially sensitive matters. Arbitration is also well-suited to cross-border disputes, offering neutrality and adaptability to foreign law and international practices.

Binding Award

Arbitral awards are final and binding and those issued by institutions such as the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre are enforceable in Vietnam and internationally under the New York Convention, enhancing their practical effectiveness in cross-border transactions.

Arbitration in Vietnam also presents several practical limitations, as outlined below.

• Costs are generally higher than court litigation, particularly in complex cases involving tribunal fees, administrative expenses and expert evidence.
• There is also a risk of annulment. Courts may set aside arbitral awards on limited grounds under Article 68 of the LCA, including where an award is deemed contrary to the “fundamental principles of Vietnamese law”. This concept remains broadly defined, creating some uncertainty in practice.
• Enforcement can be delayed. Applications to set aside awards may suspend or prolong enforcement and where an award is annulled, parties often revert to litigation rather than recommencing arbitration, reducing the efficiency gains that arbitration is intended to provide (Articles 66 and 71.8 of the LCA).

The most prominent arbitral institution in Vietnam is the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre, which handles the majority of commercial arbitration cases. VIAC has administered thousands of disputes across a wide range of sectors, involving both domestic and international parties.

Established in 1993, VIAC operates as an independent arbitral institution under the LCA. Awards rendered by VIAC tribunals are final and enforceable in Vietnam and internationally under the New York Convention.

Based on the arbitral dispute resolution procedure, the typical length of arbitral proceedings in Vietnam can be outlined as follows:

• statement of defence – after the request for arbitration, the respondent generally has 30 days to submit a defence;
• tribunal formation – usually takes several weeks;
• proceedings – several months, including evidence gathering and submissions;
• hearings – confidential hearings are conducted, typically within six to nine months from tribunal formation for straightforward cases; and
• award – 30 days of the final hearing.

Arbitral proceedings in Vietnam typically last six to 12 months, depending on the complexity of the dispute.

Key laws for arbitration in Vietnam include:

• LCA – this is the primary legislation governing arbitration, covering organisation, jurisdiction, procedures and the legal effect of arbitral awards;
• Resolution No 01/2014/NQ-HDTP of the Supreme People’s Court – provides detailed guidance on the application of the Arbitration Law, especially regarding court procedures for annulment of arbitral awards or recognition of foreign arbitral awards.
• Arbitration Rules of individual arbitration centre – each arbitration centre issues its own procedural rules, provided they comply with the Arbitration Law.
• Civil Judgment Enforcement Law 2025 – governs the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards.
• Part VII of the Civil Procedure Code 2015 – regulates the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Vietnam. Only after recognition by a Vietnamese court can a foreign arbitral award be enforced.

Under Vietnamese law, the courts have some key powers to support arbitration:

• appointment or replacement of arbitrators when parties cannot agree or when justified circumstances arise;
• applying, modifying or revoking interim measures to protect parties’ rights during arbitral proceedings;
• summoning witnesses and collecting evidence to assist in resolving disputes;
• reviewing and annulling arbitral awards if serious procedural violations occur or if the award contradicts fundamental principles of Vietnamese law;
• recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the Civil Procedure Code 2015; and
• assistance in the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards.

Court intervention in arbitration in Vietnam is limited and broadly aligned with international practice.

Courts do not review the merits of a dispute but may intervene in support of or in limited supervision over, arbitral proceedings as provided by law.

In practice, court intervention arises in three main circumstances. First, supportive functions, including the appointment or replacement of arbitrators, assistance with evidence and witness summons and the granting of interim measures. Secondly, supervisory functions, notably the setting aside of arbitral awards on limited grounds under Article 68 of the LCA, including serious procedural violations or conflicts with fundamental principles of Vietnamese law. Thirdly, recognition and enforcement, particularly in relation to foreign arbitral awards under the Civil Procedure Code 2015 and the enforcement of domestic awards through the civil judgment enforcement system.

Overall, while the framework is arbitration-supportive, court involvement remains an important practical consideration, particularly at the post-award stage.

According to Article 49 LCA, arbitral tribunals may grant interim measures upon a party’s request, including:

• prohibiting changes to the status quo of disputed assets;
• prohibiting or compelling a party to perform certain acts to prevent adverse effects on proceedings;
• attachment of disputed assets;
• ordering preservation, storage, sale or disposal of assets;
• temporary orders for payment between parties;
• prohibiting the transfer of property rights over disputed assets; and
• restrictions on the tribunal’s power.

If a party has already requested the court to apply interim measures, the arbitral tribunal must refuse. If the tribunal applies measures beyond the request and causes damage, the injured party may sue in court for compensation under civil procedure law.

Vietnamese law recognises negotiation and commercial mediation as the principal ADR methods outside litigation and arbitration, as reflected in Article 317 of the Commercial Law 2005. Negotiation is informal and conducted directly between the parties, while mediation is a more structured process governed by Decree No. 22/2017/ND-CP.

Commercial mediation may be conducted through licensed institutions, such as the Vietnam Mediation Centre or on an ad hoc basis. A successful mediation settlement may be recognised by the court under the Civil Procedure Code 2015, enhancing its enforceability.

In practice, parties may also use mechanisms such as expert determination or neutral evaluation, particularly in technically complex disputes, although these do not yet have the same formal statutory framework as mediation.

There is no general statutory requirement under Vietnamese law to engage in ADR before commencing litigation or arbitration. ADR remains voluntary and is based on party agreements.

In practice, obligations to pursue ADR typically arise from multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses in commercial contracts, requiring negotiation or mediation as a precondition to formal proceedings. Where such clauses apply, failure to comply may result in the claim being stayed or dismissed until the agreed process is followed.

Vietnamese courts and arbitral tribunals generally uphold these arrangements as an expression of party autonomy.

Engaging in ADR does not limit a party’s right to commence or continue litigation or arbitration. Parties may withdraw from non-binding processes such as negotiation or mediation at any time and proceed to formal dispute resolution.

A failed mediation does not create additional procedural barriers and parties may initiate proceedings immediately. Vietnamese law also supports hybrid processes, such as Med-Arb, Arb-Med-Arb, in which mediation and arbitration are combined in sequence. An arbitral tribunal is permitted to facilitate settlement during proceedings.

Where mediation is successful, the settlement may be submitted to a court for recognition and, once approved, is enforceable in the same manner as a court judgment.

ADR in Vietnam typically takes place before formal proceedings, most commonly through negotiation and may be followed by mediation if needed. However, ADR can also occur during proceedings. In arbitration, tribunals may facilitate settlement at any stage and parties are free to agree to mediation at any time.

Engaging in ADR does not suspend limitation periods. For commercial disputes, the limitation period is generally two years from the date of infringement and negotiation or mediation does not automatically interrupt or extend this period. Parties should therefore monitor limitation deadlines carefully while pursuing ADR.

Commercial mediation is the clearest form of ADR in Vietnam with formal statutory confidentiality protection. Under Decree No 22/2017/ND-CP, information relating to the mediation process must be kept confidential, subject to limited exceptions. Institutional rules, such as those of the Vietnam Mediation Centre, reinforce this obligation.

By contrast, negotiation is private in practice but not subject to a general statutory confidentiality regime. Its confidentiality depends on party agreement, typically through contractual confidentiality provisions.

ADR costs in Vietnam depend on the method used.

In negotiation, there are typically no institutional costs and each party bears its own expenses, including legal fees.

In commercial mediation, costs are determined by agreement between the parties or by applicable rules. Under the Vietnam Mediation Centre rules, mediation costs include registration fees, mediator remuneration and administrative fees, with additional expenses (such as travel or translation) charged on an actual-cost basis. As a default, core costs are shared equally unless otherwise agreed, while costs incurred at the request of one party are borne by that party.

Vietnamese courts are generally supportive of ADR, particularly where it facilitates consensual settlement and reduces the need for full adjudication.

This is most evident in commercial mediation, where a successful settlement may be recognised by the court under the Civil Procedure Code 2015 and once approved, is enforceable in the same manner as a court judgment. This reflects an integrated approach, with courts recognising ADR as a legitimate and complementary dispute resolution mechanism.

Legal fees in Vietnam are regulated through a combination of statutory instruments and professional rules. Under the Law on Lawyers 2006 (as amended), fees are generally agreed between the lawyer or law firm and the client in a legal services contract.

Procedural costs in court proceedings are regulated by Ordinance No 05/2024/UBTVQH15, which covers costs for experts, interpretation and inspection. Court fees and charges are governed by Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 (as amended), which sets out applicable rates and related provisions.

Third-party funding is not expressly regulated in Vietnam and there is no dedicated statutory framework governing its use in litigation or arbitration.

In practice, third-party funding remains uncommon in domestic proceedings, although it may arise in international arbitrations involving Vietnamese parties, particularly where the seat is outside Vietnam. Any such arrangement would need to be carefully structured in accordance with general principles of contract and professional conduct, given the absence of clear legislative guidance.

Contingency-style fee arrangements are available in Vietnam, although Vietnamese law more clearly recognises percentage-based or success-linked remuneration than a pure “no win, no fee” model. Article 55(2)(c) of Law on Lawyers permits legal fees to be calculated as a percentage of the value of the claim, contract or project. Such arrangements are therefore permitted, but they must be agreed in the legal services contract and remain subject to the professional obligations applicable to lawyers and law practice organisations.

In addition, Article 9(1)(dd) of the Law on Lawyers prohibits a lawyer from demanding or receiving any sum beyond what has been agreed with the client, so any success-based fee arrangement should be documented clearly and expressly in writing.

Insurance coverage specifically for litigation, arbitration and ADR costs is not yet well developed in Vietnam. In particular, products such as after-the-event insurance or legal expenses insurance are not commonly available in the domestic market. That said, certain dispute-related costs or liabilities may be covered indirectly under broader insurance policies, depending on the wording and bespoke cover may be available in large cross-border matters on a case-by-case basis.

Separately, Article 40(6) of Law on Lawyers requires law practice organisations to maintain professional liability insurance, but this is different from insurance covering a party’s own litigation, arbitration or ADR costs.

Dispute resolution costs may be recovered from the other side in Vietnam, but the position depends on the forum and the type of cost claimed. In arbitration, cost recovery is generally available.

Arbitration

In arbitration, pursuant to Article 61(1)(h) of the LCA, the arbitral award must state the allocation of arbitration costs and other related expenses. Under Article 36 of the VIAC Rules, the tribunal may allocate arbitration fees and may also order one party to pay all or part of the other party’s legal costs and reasonable expenses. Recovery is therefore possible, but remains subject to the tribunal’s discretion unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

Litigation

In court litigation, cost recovery is narrower and largely statutory. Vietnamese procedural law does not have a general “costs follow the event” rule equivalent to that found in common law jurisdictions. Court fees are subject to Resolution 326 and parties generally bear their own legal representation costs unless the court orders otherwise. The practical effect is that Vietnamese litigation is often less efficient as a costs recovery mechanism than international arbitration, which is one reason why well-advised commercial parties increasingly choose arbitration for significant disputes.

Meditation

Decree No 22/2017/ND-CP on Commercial Mediation does not contain a specific provision governing how mediation costs are to be allocated between the parties.

At the institutional level, Article 14 of the VMC Mediation Rules provides the most detailed and practically relevant framework for mediation costs in Vietnam. Under Article 14(1), mediation costs comprise three elements: a registration fee, the mediator’s remuneration and the Centre’s administrative fees. In addition, Article 14(2) identifies two categories of arising expenses: the mediator’s travel, accommodation and related costs and any further expenses arising from specific requests made by the parties.

Article 14(3) of the VMC Rules establishes the default cost allocation position. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the mediator’s remuneration, the Centre’s administrative fees and the mediator’s travel and accommodation costs are shared equally between the parties. However, expenses that arise specifically from a request made by one party, under Article 14(2)(b), are borne exclusively by that requesting party. This means that a party that requests additional services, such as special translation arrangements or particular logistical support, pays for those extras alone.

Factors Considered When Awarding Costs

Arbitration

The statutory and institutional framework for cost assessment in Vietnamese arbitration is deliberately sparse. Article 61(1)(h) of the LCA requires the arbitral award to address the allocation of arbitration costs and other related expenses, establishing that costs must be dealt with in the award, but prescribing nothing about how they should be assessed.

Article 36(1) of the VIAC Rules provides that the tribunal shall allocate arbitration fees unless the parties have agreed otherwise and Article 36(2) confirms that the tribunal has authority to order one party to pay all or part of the other party’s legal costs and other reasonable expenses. Beyond these two provisions, neither the LCA nor the VIAC Rules set out specific criteria for assessing the reasonableness or quantum of costs. In practice, tribunals typically consider factors such as the parties’ agreement, the outcome of the case, fairness, procedural conduct, proportionality between the costs claimed and the amount in dispute and whether the costs were reasonably and properly incurred.

Litigation

In court proceedings, costs are assessed more strictly by statute. Article 2(1) of the Ordinance 05/2024 defines litigation costs as expenses that are “necessary and reasonable” and Article 4(2)(b) provides that certain costs must be supported by actual contracts, invoices and vouchers. In practice, courts will consider whether the claimed cost falls within a recognised statutory category, whether it was necessary for the conduct of the case, whether the amount is properly evidenced and which party is required by law to bear that cost.

Courts in Vietnam may grant a wide range of interim relief measures to preserve assets, prevent harm and maintain the status quo pending resolution of the dispute.

In commercial practice, the most relevant measures include asset distraint, freezing of bank accounts or property, prohibitions on asset transfers and orders requiring or restraining certain acts. Courts may also suspend contractual or employment-related decisions, restrict a party from leaving Vietnam or take other urgent measures as provided by law.

These measures are applied flexibly depending on the nature of the dispute and the need to protect the parties’ rights.

Vietnamese courts may grant interim relief in support of arbitration to protect the effectiveness of proceedings.

In practice, such measures include preserving or freezing disputed assets, prohibiting their transfer ordering or restraining specific acts, requiring temporary payments and securing or disposing of assets where necessary.

These measures are intended to safeguard parties’ rights and ensure that any eventual award can be effectively enforced.

The applications for interim relief can be made throughout the resolution process. In cases of emergency where it is necessary to immediately protect evidence and prevent serious consequences, agencies organisations and individuals have the right to request a competent court to issue a decision applying the interim reliefs simultaneously with filing a lawsuit with that court.

An Arbitral Tribunal can grant interim relief once it has been established. If a party has already requested a Court to apply a measure, they cannot request the Arbitral Tribunal for the same measure and vice versa.

Vietnamese law does not provide for general security for costs in the sense of requiring a claimant to secure a defendant’s legal fees.

However, security is required in connection with interim relief. A party requesting interim measures must provide financial security to cover potential losses if the measure is later found to be unjustified.

Additionally, claimants must pay a court fee advance for their claim to be accepted, although this is not treated as security for costs.

In arbitration, tribunals may also require a requesting party to provide security when seeking interim measures, consistent with their powers under the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010.

A party can apply for Interim Injunctions at courts and in arbitration.

The applications for interim relief can be made throughout the resolution process. In cases of emergency where it is necessary to immediately protect evidence and prevent serious consequences, agencies organisations and individuals have the right to request a competent court to issue a decision applying the interim reliefs simultaneously with filing a lawsuit with that court.

An Arbitral Tribunal can grant interim relief once it has been established. If a party has already requested a Court to apply a measure, they cannot request the Arbitral Tribunal for the same measure and vice versa.

Vietnamese law does not recognise summary judgment in the common law sense.

Instead, the Civil Procedure Code 2015 provides for a simplified procedure that allows for faster resolution but still involves a hearing. This procedure is applied by the court where the case is straightforward, the legal relationship is clear, the evidence is sufficient and the parties’ obligations are largely undisputed.

Parties cannot apply for summary judgment directly; the decision to use the simplified procedure rests with the court.

Vietnam does not have a formal class action regime comparable to those in common law jurisdictions.

However, the Civil Procedure Code 2015 allows multiple plaintiffs to bring claims against the same defendant and permits courts to consolidate related claims for joint resolution.

In limited circumstances, representative actions may be brought by trade unions on behalf of employees or by consumer protection organisations on behalf of consumers. These mechanisms are the closest equivalents to class actions in Vietnam.

As noted above, Vietnam does not have a class action regime comparable to those in other jurisdictions. However, under the general provisions of Chapter VI of the Civil Procedure Code, in order to participate in a civil lawsuit, a person or entity must generally have a direct interest affected by the dispute (ie, a plaintiff, defendant or person with related rights and obligations). Naturally, the law permits such persons or entities to participate in proceedings through their representatives.

In addition, as mentioned above, certain entities are granted standing to bring claims on behalf of others in limited circumstances. In particular, consumer protection organisations may initiate proceedings to protect the common interests of consumers and trade unions may bring claims on behalf of employees in labour disputes pursuant to Chapter IV and Chapter V of the Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights 2023, Chapter XIV of the Labour Code 2019 and Articles 11.3 and 11.4 of the Law on Trade Unions.

Although Vietnam does not have a formal class action regime, courts may grant a range of civil remedies in cases involving multiple claimants or representative actions. These include restitution, compensation for material and non-material damages, injunctive relief, specific performance and declaratory relief.

Damages are calculated based on actual loss directly caused by the defendant’s conduct and are typically calculated individually for each claimant, even in group or representative proceedings. Courts may grant collective remedies, such as injunctions or declarations, while determining compensation on a case-by-case basis.

At present, Vietnamese arbitration law does not contain any specific provisions governing class actions or mass claims in arbitration. Most arbitral rules likewise do not expressly provide for a separate regime applicable to class actions, although, in theory, class action proceedings in arbitration remain possible. In practice, however, class action-type cases in Vietnamese arbitration appear rare.

Although there are currently no specific provisions on class actions, the need for a class action and mass claims mechanism in Vietnam is considerable. Legal journals and public commentary have produced a substantial number of articles highlighting this need. Moreover, Vietnam has recently witnessed a number of cases in which a single defendant has been pursued by numerous claimants arising from the same underlying facts, circumstances or conduct, such as the Trịnh Văn Quyết case and the Alibaba Real Estate Joint Stock Company fraud case.

Vietnam does not have a broad disclosure or discovery regime comparable to common law jurisdictions. Instead, the system is evidence-driven, with each party responsible for collecting and submitting the evidence it relies on. It means that both claimants and defendants must provide supporting documents to the court (no matter whether they are individuals, agencies or organisations)

Relevant authorities are required to provide documents within their control when requested or explain any inability to do so. Certain facts do not require proof, such as matters of common knowledge, prior judgments or notarised documents.

There is an obligation for parties to exchange evidence, but the Civil Procedure Code 2015 provides no clear sanctions for non-compliance.

Vietnamese law does not recognise the common law concept of the attorney-client privilege in respect of communications with lawyers or documents prepared by or for legal counsel. Instead, lawyers are subject to a duty of confidentiality under the Law on Lawyers, requiring them to keep client information confidential unless disclosure is permitted by the client or required by law.

However, this duty does not prevent courts or competent authorities from compelling the production of evidence, as Vietnamese procedural law grants broad powers to obtain relevant documents.

Accordingly, there is no formal privilege allowing documents to be withheld and no clear statutory exemption comparable to common law privilege regimes.

Generally, no. Under Article 106 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, all individuals, agencies and organisations are obliged to provide evidence to the Court. If a party possesses relevant evidence, the Court has the power to compel its production. However, there is a “soft” protection for specific types of secrets. If evidence relates to state secrets, business secrets or personal/family secrets, a party can request the Court to take protective measures. Instead of allowing you to withhold the evidence, the Court will typically order a closed trial (trial behind closed doors), refrain from publicising the evidence upon request or restrict access to the case file.

According to the Civil Procedure Code 2015, at the request of parties or when deemed necessary, the judge shall take witness testimony at or outside the court premises. Before taking witness testimony, the judge must explain the witness’s rights and obligations and require the witness to testify. The witness must read their statement aloud, then sign or fingerprint it. The witness has the right to request that amendments or additions be recorded in the statement and to sign or fingerprint to confirm them. The statement must bear the signatures of the person taking the statement, the person recording the statement and the seal of the Court; if the statement is recorded on multiple separate pages, each page must be signed and stamped with a seal overlapping the pages. If the statement of the party is recorded outside the Court premises, it must be witnessed or confirmed by the People’s Committee of the commune or the Police of the commune, ward, special administrative region or the agency or organisation where the statement was recorded.

In arbitration, at the request of one or more parties and deeming it necessary, the arbitral tribunal has the right to summon a witness to the dispute resolution hearing. The costs for the witness shall be borne by the party requesting the witness or allocated by the arbitral tribunal. If a witness, having been duly summoned by the arbitral tribunal, fails to appear without justifiable reason and their absence hinders the resolution of the dispute, the arbitral tribunal shall send a written request to the competent court to issue a summons for the witness to appear at the arbitral tribunal’s hearing.

The concept of a pretrial deposition does not formally exist in the Vietnamese legal system. There is no mechanism for lawyers to conduct sworn, recorded examinations of witnesses outside of the court’s presence to gather evidence before the trial. Evidence collection is largely overseen by the judge.

During a trial, parties have the right to question witnesses directly to clarify facts or challenge the credibility of their statements. However, the judge usually initiates the questioning. Once the court has finished, the parties (or their legal counsel) may ask follow-up questions. In arbitral proceedings, the process is often more flexible. Tribunals frequently allow more extensive questioning by counsel, more closely resembling international cross-examination standards than domestic court litigation.

Vietnamese law does permit the use of expert conclusions and recognises them as a source of evidence under Article 94.5 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015.

An expert conclusion may be ordered by the Court or conducted at the request of a party under Article 102 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015.

Under Article 80 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, the expert has a duty to present, explain and answer questions related to the expert assessment and its conclusions in an honest, well-founded and objective manner. The expert must also attend the hearing if summoned to explain the conclusion and must refuse, in writing, to conduct the examination if the matter falls outside his or her expertise or if the documents provided for the assessment are insufficient or unusable.

A foreign judgment may be recognised and enforced in Vietnam under an applicable treaty or, in its absence, on the basis of reciprocity under the Civil Procedure Code 2015.

The judgment creditor must file an application within three years from the date the judgment becomes effective, either with the Ministry of Justice or directly with the competent court. The application must include the judgment, evidence of its finality, proof of proper service and certified Vietnamese translations.

The court does not review the merits but assesses whether the statutory conditions for recognition are met. Recognition may be refused on grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, procedural defects or inconsistency with the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law.

If recognised, the judgment has the same effect as a Vietnamese court judgment and is enforceable through the civil enforcement system. Parties may appeal the recognition decision within 15 days.

A party may also apply for non-recognition within the prescribed time limits, following a similar procedure.

Where no enforcement is sought, a party may apply for non-recognition of a foreign judgment within six months from the date of receipt of the effective judgment. The application may be submitted to the Ministry of Justice or directly to the competent court, depending on applicable treaty arrangements.

The application must include the judgment (or certified copy) and supporting documents, together with certified Vietnamese translations. The court will assess the application under procedures similar to recognition proceedings and may accept or dismiss it, subject to appeal.

Domestic Arbitral Awards

An arbitral award takes effect from the date of issuance and is final. If the losing party neither voluntarily complies nor voluntarily pays, the prevailing party may request the competent civil enforcement authority to carry out enforcement. For ad hoc arbitral awards, the prevailing party may request the enforcement authorities to enforce the award after it is registered. The enforcement request must be submitted within the statute of limitations for enforcement under the Civil Judgment Enforcement Law. However, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the award, the losing party has the right to request the Court to annul the arbitral award. If such a request is made, enforcement is generally suspended until the Court issues a final decision.

Foreign Arbitral Awards

Before being enforced in Vietnam, the award must be recognised by a Vietnamese court. The party seeking enforcement must file an application for recognition within three years of the date the award became effective. The dossier must include the original or a certified copy of the arbitral award, the arbitration agreement and evidence that the award has become effective, all of which are attached with notarised or certified Vietnamese translations.

Once accepted, the Vietnamese court does not re-hear the merits of the dispute but only considers whether the conditions for recognition are satisfied. The court may refuse recognition, for example, if the arbitration agreement is invalid, a party was not properly notified, the award exceeds the scope of the arbitration agreement, the composition of the arbitral tribunal or procedures are inconsistent with the parties’ agreement or recognition would violate fundamental principles of Vietnamese law. If recognised, the foreign arbitral award is enforced in Vietnam like a judgment or decision of a Vietnamese court through the civil enforcement authorities.

Within 15 days of the issuance of the first-instance decision, the parties may lodge an appeal with the higher court. The first-instance decision can be upheld, amended, reversed or repealed.

Enforcement timelines in Vietnam vary depending on the type of decision and procedural complexity.

Foreign Judgments and Decisions

Total estimated time is at least seven months, including:

• acceptance – five to ten days (if the application is submitted to the Ministry of Justice before being forwarded to the competent court; or if the application is submitted to the competent court);
• preparation for assessment – four to six months;
• hearing scheduling – around one month; and
• appeal (if any) – 15 days are granted for the parties to lodge the appeal; between one and two months for the higher court’s assessment.

For Foreign Arbitral Awards

Total estimated time is at least four months, including:

• acceptance – five to ten days (if the application is submitted to the Ministry of Justice before being forwarded to the competent court; or if the application is submitted to the competent court);
• preparation for assessment – two to four months or longer if the court accepting the application transfers the application to another court for resolution and there are complaints on such transfer;
• hearing scheduling – within 20 days; and
• appeal (if any) – 15 days are granted for the parties to lodge the appeal; between one and two months for the higher court’s assessment.

A party can resist the enforcement of foreign judgments where:

• a civil judgment or decision of a foreign court fails to meet one of the conditions for recognition stipulated in an international treaty to which Vietnam is a party.
• the civil judgment or decision has not yet become legally effective according to the laws of the country where the court issued the judgment or decision;
• the person obligated to comply or their legal representative was absent from the hearing of the foreign court due to not being duly summoned or the foreign court’s document was not served to them within a reasonable time as prescribed by the laws of the country where the foreign court is located, preventing them from exercising their right to self-defence;
• the court of the country that issued the judgment or decision lacks jurisdiction to resolve the civil case in accordance with relevant Vietnamese rules;
• this civil case already has a legally effective judgment or decision from a Vietnamese court or before the foreign court accepted the case, a Vietnamese court had accepted and is currently resolving the case or there is already a civil judgment or decision from a third-country court that has been recognised and enforced by a Vietnamese court;
• the statute of limitations for enforcement has expired under the law of the country where the court issued the judgment or decision or under Vietnam’s civil enforcement law;
• the enforcement of the judgment or decision has been annulled or suspended in the country where the court issued the judgment or decision; and
• the recognition and enforcement of civil judgments and decisions of foreign courts in Vietnam are contrary to the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law.

A party can resist enforcement of foreign arbitral awards on the following grounds, with supporting evidence:

• the parties to the arbitration agreement lacked the capacity to enter into such an agreement under the applicable law of each party;
• the arbitral agreement is not legally valid under the law of the country chosen by the parties to apply the law or under the law of the country where the award was rendered, if the parties did not choose the applicable law for the agreement;
• the agency organisation or individual obligated to comply with the award was not promptly and properly notified of the appointment of the arbitrator, of the procedure for resolving the dispute in the foreign arbitration tribunal or, for other legitimate reasons, was unable to exercise their procedural rights;
• a foreign arbitral award on a dispute not requested by the parties or exceeding the requirements of the parties to the arbitration agreement. If the part of the decision on the requested matter can be separated from the part on the unrequested matter at the foreign arbitral tribunal, the part on the requested matter may be recognised and enforced in Vietnam;
• the composition of the foreign arbitral tribunal or its dispute resolution procedure is inconsistent with the arbitration agreement or with the law of the country where the foreign arbitral award was rendered, if the arbitration agreement does not provide for such matters;
• the foreign arbitral award has not yet become binding on the parties; and
• the foreign arbitral award has been annulled or suspended by a competent authority of the country where the award was rendered or of the country whose law was applied.

Foreign arbitral awards shall also not be recognised if:

• under Vietnamese law, the dispute cannot be resolved through arbitration; and
• recognising and enforcing the foreign arbitral award in Vietnam is contrary to the fundamental principles of the law of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Regulation of AI Use in Dispute Resolution in Vietnam

Arbitration institutions in Vietnam have begun to apply technology in dispute resolution. The Hanoi International Arbitration Centre (HIAC) is the first arbitral institution in Vietnam to provide a platform enabling dispute resolution through online mediation and/or online arbitral proceedings. The Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) has also partially implemented digitalised procedures via the VIAC eCASE platform, which allows online submissions, document management and case progress tracking.

In litigation, the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam has issued Plan No. 131/KH-TANDTC on the `digital transformation of the court system to 2025, with an orientation for 2025–2030 and a vision to 2045, focusing on unified databases, technological infrastructure and institutional reform in conjunction with digital technologies. However, this remains a policy direction only and there are still no specific legal regulations governing the application of artificial intelligence in court proceedings or adjudication.

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Dispute Resolution in Vietnam

Efficiency gains

AI supports legal research, document review and case management, reducing time and costs in both litigation and arbitration.

Improved access to justice

The Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam is implementing e-court initiatives (e-filing, online case tracking and pilot online hearings). Similarly, arbitral institutions (eg, VIAC, HIAC) allow online submissions and remote hearings, improving accessibility for domestic and cross-border disputes.

Early-stage adoption

Current applications remain limited to supportive functions (data management, document processing) and most dispute resolution activities are still conducted traditionally.

Regulatory gaps and practical constraints

Vietnam has not issued specific procedural rules on AI use in litigation or arbitration. Existing policies (eg, digital transformation plans) remain directional. Practical concerns include data privacy, system reliability and lack of technical infrastructure. As a result, AI’s impact remains incremental, with human decision-makers retaining full control.

AI Adoption by Courts in Vietnam

Courts in Vietnam have begun to embrace AI-related technologies, primarily as part of broader digitalisation efforts led by the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam. E-court systems, online publication of judgments and legal databases have improved transparency and efficiency. In practice, machine learning tools are used for document classification, legal research and case management. In certain local courts, natural language processing (NLP) has been piloted to extract case data, generate statistical reports and assist in drafting judgments. However, these applications remain supportive in nature; adjudication and decision-making continue to rest entirely with judges.

Future of AI in Dispute Resolution

AI is expected to evolve as a “judicial assistant” rather than a decision-maker. International models (eg, AI-assisted judging tools in China, Estonia, Singapore and South Korea) indicate a trend toward using AI to analyse precedents, suggest outcomes and identify relevant legal factors. Vietnam is likely to follow this path gradually, especially as caseloads increase and demands for consistency and transparency grow. In the near term, AI will likely expand in areas such as legal analytics, draft judgment support and anomaly detection, while maintaining human control over final decisions. This approach aligns with current policy directions promoting technological adoption while preserving the central role of judges in adjudication.