Suing in Thailand vs Vietnam: Litigation and Foreign Judgment Enforcement

Where a contract has no arbitration clause, a company is forced into court — and between Thailand and Vietnam the biggest difference is not trial speed but what happens to the judgment after you win. A judgment can be a real trophy, or merely evidence for suing again from scratch in the other country. This article compares litigation and foreign-judgment enforcement between the two countries for FDI investors.

Legal basis

On the Vietnamese side, commercial disputes with foreign elements fall to provincial people’s courts; a foreign judgment is enforceable in Vietnam only through the recognition procedure in the Civil Procedure Code 92/2015/QH13, within the mutual legal assistance treaties Vietnam joins or on reciprocity. First-instance civil court fees follow Resolution 326/2016/UBTVQH14 of the National Assembly Standing Committee, scaled to the amount in dispute.

On the Thai side, the structural point to know before suing: Thailand has no regime for directly recognising and enforcing foreign court judgments. A foreign judgment in Thailand carries mainly evidential weight; a winning party seeking money from Thai assets usually has to re-litigate the case in a Thai court. Keep the distinction sharp: Thailand is a New York Convention party for arbitral awards — that regime covers awards, not court judgments.

Applied analysis

On time, a commercial case in Vietnam through two instances commonly runs to years where appeals and cassation follow; a Thai case through the Court of First Instance, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court is no quicker, and the enforcement stage in both countries is the least predictable variable. The practical difference is predictability: foreign parties in Thailand face Thai-language proceedings and strict legalisation of foreign documents; in Vietnam, Vietnamese language and comparable consular legalisation demands.

On the bias question, the straight answer is: no legal mechanism in either country permits favouring the local party; the real risk, where it exists, sits in asymmetries of information access, procedural familiarity and quality of local representation. The way to manage it is not to avoid courts but to retain strong local counsel, standardise evidence from the start and — above all — not to drift into having to sue in the partner’s country in the first place: arbitration clauses exist precisely to avoid this problem.

Recommended actions

If you must litigate, choose the forum by where the future losing party’s assets sit, because a judgment is worth only what it can reach. Winning in Vietnam against assets in Thailand means starting again in Thailand; winning in Thailand and bringing the judgment to Vietnam means the Civil Procedure Code recognition procedure with its statutory refusal grounds.

This article is delineated from the India–Vietnam pairing in the published EXP-3228 and the Philippines–Vietnam pairing in EXP-3230 in this batch: Thailand is the special case of the three because it does not recognise foreign judgments, and that single detail decides cross-border litigation strategy.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long do commercial courts in each country take to handle FDI disputes?

No committed figure exists because time depends on instances and appeals, but in general practice an FDI commercial case in Vietnam through first instance and appeal is measured in years, and in Thailand, with three potential court levels, is comparable or longer. Post-judgment enforcement in both countries is usually the least predictable part. Companies should plan cash flow and evidence on a multi-year litigation scenario rather than expect a quick verdict within months in either country.

Are foreign judgments recognized/enforced in Thailand?

Not in the sense of direct enforcement. Thailand does not operate a regime for recognising and enforcing foreign court judgments; a Vietnamese court judgment taken to Thailand is used mainly as evidence, and the winning party usually has to re-litigate the merits in a Thai court to recover from Thai assets. This is entirely different from arbitral awards, which are enforced in Thailand under the 1958 New York Convention, to which Thailand is a party. The practical consequence: against a partner with Thai assets, an arbitration clause in the contract is worth far more than a court-selection clause.

Litigation costs and court fees in each country?

Court fees in Vietnam follow the value-scaled schedule in Resolution 326/2016/UBTVQH14 — large commercial disputes pay a degressive percentage by bracket, plus appellate fees on appeal. In Thailand, civil filing fees are likewise a percentage of the claim value subject to a statutory cap under its procedural law. Beyond court fees, local counsel, translation, consular legalisation and expert costs usually dwarf the fees in a cross-border case. Exact figures for your case need a quote from counsel in the forum country on the real file; any fixed comparison table dates quickly.

Are courts in each country biased toward the local party? Recommendation to check local counsel for foreign law details.

No rule permits bias, and both systems proclaim procedural equality. The risk investors perceive usually comes from three practical sources: proceedings in a local language the foreign party does not directly control; evidence formalities and legalisation that locals navigate more easily; and local professional networks. Reduce it by using reputable independent local counsel, keeping strategic decisions in your own hands, and preparing evidence to the forum country’s standard from the start. In the long run this is also why large FDI contracts usually choose neutral arbitration over either party’s home courts.

Reviewed by the Legal Practice Group – FLAT LAW FIRM

This legal analysis has been verified against current Vietnamese regulations and cross-border FDI transaction practices by the attorneys at FLAT LAW FIRM.

Meet Our Attorneys Schedule a Consultation