New Law on Specialized Court 2025 At the Vietnam International Financial Centre Opening the Door to International Commercial Litigation Standards?

New Law on Specialized Court 2025 At the Vietnam International Financial Centre Opening the Door to International Commercial Litigation Standards?

For the first time, Vietnam has formally introduced a specialised international commercial court model, designed to adjudicate complex financial, investment, and cross-border commercial disputes arising within the International Financial Centre (IFC)

1. Introduction

On 11 December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted the Law on the Specialised Court within the International Financial Centre (“Law on the Specialised Court 2025”), which entered into force on 1 January 2026.³ For the first time, Vietnam has formally introduced a specialised international commercial court model, designed to adjudicate complex financial, investment, and cross-border commercial disputes arising within the International Financial Centre (IFC) established under the National Assembly’s Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15.⁴

2. Legal Architecture and Separate Procedural Rules of Vietnam’s Specialised Court

The Law on the Specialised Court 2025 serves as a hybrid judicial institution. While it remains part of the Supreme People’s Court system, it operates under a separate set of procedural rules that prioritise party autonomy and international standards, rather than under the general Civil Procedure Code 2015, as traditional courts in Vietnam do.

Institutionally, the Specialised Court remains part of the People’s Court system, preserving constitutional coherence and judicial unity. However, its functional autonomy is significant. The Court is organised as a single national-level specialised court, located in Ho Chi Minh City, with jurisdiction determined by the nature of disputes rather than administrative boundaries. This design mirrors the structural logic of international commercial courts such as the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts, both of which operate as specialised divisions within domestic judicial systems while serving international litigants.

3. The Revolution in Evidence: Shifting to an Adversarial Culture

Procedurally, the Specialised Court departs markedly from Vietnam’s traditional inquisitorial model. Its procedural framework incorporates several mechanisms inspired by common law commercial courts and international arbitration, reflecting a hybrid adjudicatory model.

(a) Document Production and Disclosure Standards

The Court introduces document production.⁵ In traditional Vietnamese litigation, the court often serves as the primary gatherer of evidence, frequently on behalf of the parties. The Specialised Court eliminates this role, placing the burden of proof and the duty of disclosure entirely upon the litigants. A critical feature of this regime is that any document a party intends to rely on must be sent to all other parties; failure to do so renders the evidence inadmissible.⁶

By mandating early disclosure, the court ensures that the issues in dispute are transparent and that the judge can focus on the core legal questions. This process is heavily influenced by the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, providing a familiar environment for practitioners accustomed to international commercial dispute resolution.⁷

(b) Expert Evidence and Cross-Examination

The Law formally recognizes the right of parties to agree on experts, or for the Court to appoint experts when technical specialist knowledge is required, such as expert opinions on foreign law, finance, and technical matters. These experts are mandated to provide independent, impartial, and objective opinions.⁸ This is essential for complex financial disputes involving digital assets or intricate derivative contracts.

Moreover, cross-examination is found in Article 32.2(c) of the Law, which empowers the presiding judge to control the interrogation and questioning between the parties and their representatives. Currently, the draft procedural rules introduce cross-examination of witnesses and experts, a hallmark of adversarial proceedings. This innovation strengthens fact-finding accuracy and enhances judicial engagement with contested evidence.

4. Case Management Conferences: The mechanics of efficient justice

The Law on the Specialised Court 2025 introduces the Case Management Conference (CMC), in which judges and the disputing parties discuss procedural issues to enhance the effectiveness of the case.⁹

Under Article 24 of the Specialised Court Law 2025, the judge convenes a CMC after the respondent has submitted their initial response. The objective is to “tailor-make” the litigation process, and the parties discuss:

- Identifying the scope of the dispute

- The exchange of documents and expert evidence

- Determining the specific timetable and procedural steps for the case

- Deciding whether to proceed via the court’s electronic environment

The resulting Case Management Decision is legally binding on the parties (Article 24, Clause 3), ensuring predictability and preventing the delays common in traditional litigation.¹⁰

5. Summary and Default Judgments: Expedited Tracks

The Specialised Court introduces the Summary Judgment, allowing a judge to dispose of a case without a full trial if a party has “no real prospect” of success and there is no other “compelling reason” for the matter to proceed to trial.¹¹ This mechanism is directly inspired by global common law standards, specifically mirroring Part 24 of the DIFC Rules (immediate judgement) and Order 56 of the SICC Rules 2021, which utilise the identical “no real prospect” test to filter out unmeritorious claims or defences at an early stage. By adopting this threshold, Vietnam enables the swift resolution of clear-cut contractual breaches, significantly reducing the “nuisance value” of protracted litigation that often plagues traditional civil law systems.

Furthermore, the Law also introduces the Default Judgment.¹² If a respondent is duly served but fails to acknowledge receipt or submit a defense within the prescribed timeline, the Court may proceed in absentia and issue a default judgment. This aligns with Part 13 of the DIFC Rules, which empower judges to issue judgments in absentia to prevent dilatory tactics.¹³ Unlike traditional Vietnamese procedures that often require multiple summonses and judicial persistence to reach a verdict, this new rule compels litigants to respect the “rules of the game” or face immediate legal consequences.

6. Interim Measures

The Specialised Court possesses a wide range of interim measures to provide urgent protection for assets and evidence.¹⁴ The fifteen specific categories in Article 28 of the Law include asset freezing, search and seizure of evidence, and so on. Crucially, Article 28(15) of the Law provides a “catch-all” power to apply any other measure the court deems appropriate, giving international judges the flexibility to utilise remedies such as anti-suit injunctions.

7. The Application of Precedent within the Specialised Court

In a major departure from traditional civil law practice, Article 8(4) of the Law explicitly grants the Specialised Court the power to “develop and apply precedent”. Furthermore, Article 32(3) of the Law mandates that judges apply these precedents when adjudicating cases. This ensures that the court builds a consistent “body of case law” that provides the legal certainty required by the financial community.

Just as the DIFC Courts look to English common law and other international precedents to shape their jurisprudence,¹⁵ Vietnamese judges and lawyers are now required to adapt to a culture of researching and applying specific case law. The presence of foreign judges will be critical in reconciling common law techniques with Vietnamese legal principles, eventually creating a sophisticated “hybrid jurisprudence in Vietnam.¹⁶

8. Opportunities and Challenges

The new procedural framework of the Specialised Court creates unprecedented opportunities for litigation lawyers, through recoverable legal costs and the direct participation of foreign counsel,¹⁷ while simultaneously requiring a fundamental shift from an inquisitorial to a more adversarial, internationally oriented litigation culture. Therefore, Vietnamese judges and litigation lawyers have to rapidly upgrade their skills in order to meet global standards and support Vietnam’s ambition to become a credible hub for international commercial dispute resolution.

The Specialised Court is within the broader dispute-resolution ecosystem of the IFC, which also envisages the establishment of the Vietnam International Financial Arbitration Centre (VIFCA). In this context, the Court serves as an institutional testing ground for international-standard dispute-resolution mechanisms.

i. This coexistence mirrors global financial centres, where litigation and arbitration operate as mutually reinforcing options.