CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

CYIL 15 ȍ2024Ȏ JURISDICTION OF VIETNAMESE COURTS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL… rights and obligations of Vietnamese agencies, organizations and individuals that are headquartered or reside in Vietnam (Art 469.1.e). Link: https://congbobanan.toaan.gov.vn/2ta857038t1cvn/chi-tiet-ban-an 4. Judgment No 1808 /2018/KDTM-ST dated 30 November 2018 regarding disputes on a shares transfer contract between an Australian plaintiff and a Vietnamese defendant. The decision did not cite Art 469. Link: https://congbobanan.toaan.gov.vn/2ta360596t1cvn/chi-tiet-ban-an 5. Judgment No 1177 /2019/KDTM-ST dated 18 Sep 2019 regarding disputes on a sales contract between a Singaporean plaintiff and a Hong Kong defendant. The decision cited Art 469.1.dd, ruling that the place of performance of the contract was in Vietnam (the unloading port was Ho Chi Minh Port), therefore, the Vietnamese court had international jurisdiction. Link: https://congbobanan.toaan.gov.vn/2ta478244t1cvn/chi-tiet-ban-an. 6. Judgment No 47 /2020/KDTM-ST dated 09 Jan 2020 regarding disputes on a sales contract between a Vietnamese plaintiff and a German defendant. The decision did not cite Art 469 CPC 2015. The plaintiff chose to sue in the jurisdiction where the contract was performed (Vietnamese court) in accordance with Art 40.1 CPC 2015 (domestic jurisdiction) and the court accepted jurisdiction since the sales of goods and payment took place in Vietnam. Link: https://congbobanan.toaan.gov.vn/2ta844819t1cvn/chi-tiet-ban-an 7. Judgment No 1583 /2020/KDTM-ST dated 23 Sept 2020 regarding disputes on an international sales contract between an Indian plaintiff and a Vietnamese defendant. The decision did not cite Art 469. Link: https://congbobanan.toaan.gov.vn/2ta867925t1cvn/chi-tiet-ban-an 8. Judgment No 2086 /2020/KDTM-ST dated 10 Dec 2020 regarding disputes on an international sales contract between a South African plaintiff and a Vietnamese 9. Judgment No 1401 /2020/KDTM-ST dated 03 Sept 2020 regarding disputes on shares transfer contract between an Dutch plaintiff and a Vietnamese defendant. The decision did not cite Art 469. Link: https://congbobanan.toaan.gov.vn/2ta867935t1cvn/chi-tiet-ban-an Hanoi City People’s Court: 1. Judgment No 50 /2018/KDTM-ST Dated 08 Nov 2018 regarding disputes on a sales contract between a K (encoded) plaintiff and a Vietnamese defendant. The decision did not cite Art 469. Link: https://congbobanan.toaan.gov.vn/2ta246647t1cvn/chi-tiet-ban-an 2. Judgment No 32 /2019/KDTM-ST dated 12 Aug 2019 regarding disputes on a sales contract between a Cambodian plaintiff and a Vietnamese defendant. The decision did not cite Art 469. Link: https://congbobanan.toaan.gov.vn/2ta427908t1cvn/chi-tiet-ban-an defendant. The decision cited Art 469 but did not specify the clause. Link: https://congbobanan.toaan.gov.vn/2ta868536t1cvn/chi-tiet-ban-an

291