In commercial disputes, winning on paper but recovering nothing is a scenario many businesses have lived through: the counterparty dissipates assets while the case is pending, and by the time the judgment takes effect there is “nothing left to enforce”. Provisional urgent measures are the legal tool helping businesses prevent that scenario — “locking” assets, evidence, or the status quo from the very start of the case.
But this is a double-edged sword. A wrongful request for provisional urgent measures that harms the subject or third parties makes the requester liable to compensate. This article analyzes the full mechanism of provisional urgent measures in courts under the 2015 Civil Procedure Code: what measures exist, the conditions and procedures, liability for wrongful requests — and distinguishes them from interim measures in arbitral proceedings.
What are provisional urgent measures in courts?
Provisional urgent measures are measures decided by the court during case resolution to temporarily address the parties’ urgent needs: protecting life, health, and property; collecting and preserving evidence; preserving the existing state to avoid irreparable harm; and securing case resolution and later judgment enforcement.
The keyword here is “provisional”: this measure is not an adjudication of the parties’ rights and obligations, but only a stopgap solution while awaiting the court’s resolution of the case. When the case ends or the application grounds cease, the measure will be changed or cancelled.
In commercial disputes, typical situations calling for provisional urgent measures are: the counterparty shows signs of transferring or dissipating assets; the risk that accounts will be emptied before the judgment is enforced; important evidence (goods, books, data) at risk of destruction or alteration; or the need to stop ongoing violations causing growing harm.
Provisional urgent measures under Article 114 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code
Article 114 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code lists 16 specific measures (clauses 1 to 16) plus an “open” clause — clause 17 referring to other provisional urgent measures under specialized laws. In commercial disputes, the most commonly used measures include:
Seizure of disputed assets. The court seizes the assets that are the object of the dispute (e.g., a shipment, real estate, machinery) and entrusts them to one party or a third person for management and preservation until the court’s decision. This is the “hard lock” on disputed assets.
Prohibition on transfer of property rights over disputed assets. The subject may not transfer, donate, mortgage, or dispose of the disputed assets in any form. An important note: under the regulations, this measure and similar ones (clauses 6, 7, and 8 of Article 114) apply only to disputed assets — not extending to the party’s other assets.
Freezing of accounts at banks and credit institutions. The subject’s accounts are frozen to prevent withdrawals and transfers. Under clauses 10 and 11 of Article 114, the court may only freeze accounts and assets of a value equivalent to the property obligation the subject must perform — freezing beyond the disputed value is not allowed.
Freezing of the obligor’s assets. Similar to account freezing but applying to assets (movables, immovables) the obligor is holding or has deposited elsewhere, with the same value limit equivalent to the obligation.
Prohibiting or compelling the parties to perform certain acts. For example: prohibiting continued manufacture or trade of goods alleged to infringe; compelling restoration of the original state; compelling performance of urgent obligations. This is a flexible measure, “tailored” to each case.
Other measures under specialized laws (clause 17 of Article 114): when resolving disputes, courts also apply provisional urgent measures under relevant substantive laws (e.g., intellectual property law, competition law).
Conditions for applying provisional urgent measures
Not every petition gets granted. The core conditions include:
There must be a request from a party. The general principle: courts apply provisional urgent measures only upon a request from a party, its lawful representative, or an agency, organization, or individual filing suit under Article 187 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code. Courts decide on their own motion only in special cases under Article 135 of the Code (e.g., protecting minors or persons lacking civil act capacity — rare in purely commercial disputes).
Evidence must show the request is necessary and lawful. The requester must produce documents and evidence showing: (1) grounds to believe its lawful rights and interests are being or will be infringed; (2) the measure is necessary — i.e., there is urgency, e.g., assets at risk of dissipation, evidence at risk of destruction; and (3) the requested measure is appropriate and proportionate to what needs protection. A generic petition without specific evidence is almost certainly rejected.
Respect each measure’s limits. As noted: measures against disputed assets (clauses 6, 7, and 8 of Article 114) apply strictly to disputed assets; account and asset freezing (clauses 10 and 11 of Article 114) only within the value equivalent to the obligation. Requests exceeding these limits will be rejected or treated as improper.
Who may request, and when
Under Article 111 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, during case resolution, parties, their lawful representatives, or agencies, organizations, or individuals filing suit under Article 187 may request the court hearing the case to apply one or more provisional urgent measures.
There are two main timings:
During case resolution. This is the ordinary case: the case has been accepted, and a party files the request with the court hearing that case.
Simultaneously with filing the lawsuit, in urgent situations. Clause 2 of Article 111 provides: where urgency requires immediate evidence protection or prevention of serious consequences, agencies, organizations, or individuals may request the competent court to decide provisional urgent measures simultaneously with filing the lawsuit. This is the “emergency lane” for matters that cannot wait — e.g., discovering the counterparty is processing a real estate transfer that very week.
Application dossier and procedures
The petition. A petition for provisional urgent measures must contain the main contents under Clause 1 of Article 133 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, including: information of the requester and the subject; the measures requested and the reasons and purposes; the assets or acts concerned. The petition is accompanied by documents and evidence supporting the request. Where an agency, organization, or individual makes a proposal (not as a party), a written proposal is made under Article 134.
The court’s review time limit. Before the trial opens: within 03 working days from receiving the petition — if the requester need not provide security, or right after the requester has provided security under Article 136 — the Judge must promptly issue the application decision; if rejected, a written notice with clear reasons is given. At trial: the Trial Panel considers, discusses, and decides right in the courtroom; if granted, the decision is issued immediately or after the requester has provided security.
Urgent cases (Clause 2 of Article 111): after receiving the petition together with the lawsuit and accompanying evidence, the Chief Justice immediately assigns a Judge to the case; within 48 hours from receipt, the Judge must consider and decide. This is a very short deadline, requiring the business’s dossier to be thoroughly prepared from the outset — no time for repeated supplements.
Security for the request
Under Article 136 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, for certain provisional urgent measures, the court issues the application decision only after the requester has provided security: depositing a sum of money, precious metals, gemstones, or valuable papers in an amount set by the court.
The purpose of security is to create a source for compensating damages if the request is later determined to be wrongful. In other words, the law forces the requester to “put down a deposit of confidence” in the correctness of its request. The amount is set by the court depending on the case’s nature — businesses need to budget cash flow for this when planning a provisional urgent measure request.
Changing and cancelling provisional urgent measures
Provisional urgent measures are not permanent. The court decides to change or cancel them when: the application grounds cease (e.g., the parties have settled, the assets are otherwise secured); the requester proposes cancellation; or the application decision was not in accordance with the law. Before trial opens, changes and cancellations are decided by a single Judge; at trial, by the Trial Panel.
Strategically, businesses should note: provisional urgent measures can be used as “leverage” in settlement negotiations — but can also be challenged by the counterparty’s cancellation request if the grounds are shown to have changed. Monitoring and promptly responding to the other side’s change or cancellation requests is an indispensable part of case management.
Liability for wrongful requests
This is the part businesses must read most carefully. Article 113 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code provides:
The requester is responsible for its request. Where a wrongful request for provisional urgent measures harms the subject or third parties, the requester must compensate. “Wrongful” means: unfounded, exceeding what is necessary, or untruthful documents and evidence. The harm can be enormous — e.g., an account freeze preventing the counterparty from paying partners, losing contracts, losing reputation.
The court must also compensate for misapplication. Where the court’s wrongful application of provisional urgent measures causes harm, it must compensate under the Law on State Compensation Liability, in cases including: the court applying on its own motion; applying a measure different from the one requested; applying beyond what was requested; or applying outside the time limit / failing to apply without legitimate reasons.
The practical lesson: request provisional urgent measures only with solid evidence and careful calculation of potential harm to the other side. Sweeping, unfounded requests are not only rejected but open the risk of reverse compensation claims.
Distinguishing from interim measures in arbitral proceedings
When a dispute is resolved by commercial arbitration (under the parties’ arbitration agreement), the interim measure mechanism differs importantly from courts.
Under Articles 48 and 49 of the 2010 Law on Commercial Arbitration (amended and supplemented by Law No. 81/2025/QH15 dated 24/6/2025, effective from 01/7/2025 — to be distinguished from Resolution No. 81/2025/UBTVQH15 of the National Assembly Standing Committee on court organization, a different instrument): the disputing parties may request the arbitral tribunal or the court to apply provisional urgent measures. Requesting the court is not deemed a waiver of the arbitration agreement. The arbitral tribunal may apply one or more measures against the disputing parties, including: prohibiting changes to the status quo of disputed assets; prohibiting or compelling certain acts; seizing disputed assets; requiring preservation, storage, sale, or disposal of assets; interim orders on payment; prohibiting transfer of property rights over disputed assets. If one party has already requested the court, the arbitral tribunal must refuse a subsequent request, and the tribunal may require the requester to provide financial security before applying.
The core difference: the arbitral tribunal’s measures in principle apply only against the disputing parties and lack direct enforcement mechanisms like courts — whereas court measures under the 2015 Civil Procedure Code have a full enforcement system. Hence, in arbitral proceedings, where bank account freezing or asset seizure requiring coercion is needed, parties often choose to request the court. In-depth coverage of interim measures in arbitral proceedings is presented separately in another article in our arbitration series.
Practical strategy when considering provisional urgent measures
Assess asset-dissipation signs early. As soon as a dispute arises, gather information on the counterparty’s assets: real estate, accounts, inventories. Signs such as rushed asset transfers, changes of representative, or abnormal capital withdrawals signal the need for swift action.
Prepare evidence before filing. With review time limits of only 03 working days (or 48 hours in urgent cases), the dossier must be complete from the start: evidence of the infringed right, evidence of urgency, and a specific, proportionate measure proposal. A generic petition is a rejected petition.
Choose the right measure at the right level. Requesting beyond what is necessary is not only easily rejected but increases compensation risk. If only preventing one real estate transfer is needed, do not ask to freeze the counterparty’s entire accounts.
Budget for security costs. The money or assets for security under Article 136 may be substantial. Factor it into the case budget and have sources ready to provide it as soon as the court requires — delays can postpone the application decision at the most critical moment.
For an overall picture of handling a dispute stage by stage, see the commercial dispute handling checklist, and the evidence collection guide — the foundation for getting any interim measure request granted.
Frequently asked questions
May a court apply provisional urgent measures on its own motion without any request?
In principle, courts apply them only upon a party’s petition (Article 111). Courts decide on their own motion only in special cases under Article 135 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code. In ordinary commercial disputes, businesses must proactively file requests.
Are there limits on freezing the counterparty’s accounts?
Yes. For account and asset freezing (clauses 10 and 11 of Article 114), the court may freeze only within the value equivalent to the property obligation the subject must perform. Freezing beyond the disputed value will not be granted.
If the court rejects my request, must I compensate anything?
Rejection does not equal compensation liability — compensation under Article 113 arises only where a request was wrongful (applied, then determined wrong) and caused actual harm to the subject or third parties. However, unfounded, abusive petitions may affect the court’s assessment of the business’s good faith in the case.
While resolving a dispute by arbitration, may I ask the court for interim measures?
Yes. Article 48 of the 2010 Law on Commercial Arbitration expressly provides that requesting the court to apply provisional urgent measures is not deemed a rejection of the arbitration agreement. In practice, many businesses choose this route when they need strongly coercive measures the arbitral tribunal cannot directly implement.
How long do provisional urgent measures last?
The law sets no fixed general duration; the measure lasts until changed, cancelled, or the case is resolved. The court will cancel when the application grounds cease, when the requester proposes it, or when the application decision was unlawful. After achieving the purpose (e.g., the parties have settled), businesses should proactively propose cancellation to avoid unnecessary liability.
Consultation contact
Deciding whether to request provisional urgent measures — and which measure, at what time — is one of the most important strategic decisions in a commercial dispute. A small misstep can both lose the asset-preservation opportunity and incur compensation liability. Contact FLAT LAW FIRM for a lawyer’s assessment of the situation and a suitable plan. Learn more about our commercial dispute and arbitration services.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information on provisional urgent measures in commercial disputes in Vietnam and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case. Laws may change and their application depends on each case’s facts. Businesses should consult a lawyer before deciding.
