Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Vietnam

Sun, 05 Mar 2023

Categories: Insights

Contributors: Guodong Du 杜国栋 , Meng Yu 余萌

Editor: Lin Haibin 林海斌

avatar

As of September 2019, Vietnamese courts have handled a total of 26 cases of foreign judgments recognition and enforcement.

We obtained the basic information about these cases from the Database of Recognition and Enforcement in Vietnam of Foreign Court Judgments and Decisions and Foreign Arbitral Awards (in Vietnamese: CSDL CÔNG NHẬN VÀ CHO THI HÀNH BẢN ÁN, QUYẾT ĐỊNH CỦA TÒA ÁN NƯỚC NGOÀI, PHÁN QUYẾT CỦA TRỌNG TÀI NƯỚC NGOÀI) on the official website of the Ministry of Justice of Vietnam.

Among these cases:

1. In terms of case types, 14 cases concern marriage and family, four cases in civil-law matters, and eight cases in commercial matters.

2. In terms of requesting countries and regions, the 26 cases concern judgments from South Korea (7), the United States (2), France (2), Germany (2), the Chinese Mainland (1), the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (1), the Taiwan region (1), Russia (1), Poland (1), Singapore (1), the Czech Republic (1), Canada (1), and other countries to be found out (5).

3. In terms of case disposition, Vietnamese courts ruled to recognize and enforce judgments in 13 cases, and refused to recognize and enforce judgments in 4 cases, the trials of eight cases were suspended, and the parties of one case withdrew their applications.

4. One of the earliest cases handled by Vietnamese courts is the judgment rendered on 29 May 2012, involving the recognition and enforcement of the Russian judgment on marriage and family (child custody). The latest one is a case on marriage and family whose trial was suspended on 23 Sept. 2019, and the state of origin remains unknown.

For the basic case information, see the chart below.

Photo by Andreea Popa on Unsplash

Contributors: Guodong Du 杜国栋 , Meng Yu 余萌

Recognizing and Enforcing Foreign Judgments in China

Insight: China Justice

Vietnam-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement

What’s New for China’s Rules on International Civil Jurisdiction? (B) - Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (3)

The Fifth Amendment (2023) to the PRC Civil Procedure Law has opened a new chapter on international civil jurisdiction rules in China, covering four types of jurisdictional grounds, parallel proceedings, lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens. This post focuses on how conflicts of jurisdiction are resolved through mechanisms such as lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens.

What’s New for China’s Rules on International Civil Jurisdiction? (A) - Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (2)

The Fifth Amendment (2023) to the PRC Civil Procedure Law has opened a new chapter on international civil jurisdiction rules in China, covering four types of jurisdictional grounds, parallel proceedings, lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens. This post focuses on the four types of jurisdictional grounds, namely special jurisdiction, jurisdiction by agreement, jurisdiction by submission, and exclusive jurisdiction.

What’s New for China’s Rules on Foreign Judgments Recognition and Enforcement? - Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (1)

The Fifth Amendment (2023) to the PRC Civil Procedure Law introduced the long-awaited rule on refusal grounds of recognition and enforcement. This time, the four new articles provide the missing piece of the framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in China.

Chinese Judgment Finality in Doubt: Canadian Court Bewildered by Retrial and Procuratorate Protest

In 2021, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, puzzled by mechanisms such as retrial and procuratorate protest in the Chinese judicial system, refused to grant a summary judgment enforcing a Chinese judgment on the ground of finality (Yang v. Kong, 2021 BCSC 809).

Canadian Court Refuses to Recognize Chinese Judgment on Ground of Finality in 2018

In 2018, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada refused to give a summary judgment in favor of a Chinese judgment creditor on the ground of finality (Xu v Yang, 2018 BCSC 393).

How Do Chinese Courts Determine Jurisdiction over Offshore Companies under New York Convention?

In a recent case involving the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the Shanghai Maritime Court confirmed its jurisdiction over an offshore company respondent with its principal place of business in China (see Oriental Prime Shipping Co. Limited v. Hong Glory International Shipping Company Limited (2020)) .