Supreme Court’s Precedent 55/2022 recognising validity of an unnotarised contract for transfer of land use right

In October 2022, the Supreme Court issued Precedent 55/2022 which recognises the validity of an unnotarised contract for transfer of land use right on the basis that two thirds of the contract have been performed and accordingly the contract becomes valid in accordance with Article 129 of the Civil Code 2015. The background of the case is as follows:

· In 2009, the parties signed a contract for transfer of land use right over a piece of land which would be allocated by the Government to the seller in accordance with a land compensation scheme. The contract was not notarised.

· In 2016, the Seller received the land use right certificate for the transferred land. The Buyer also paid around 90% of the sale price. The Buyer also leased the land to a third party.

· However, the Seller later on refused to register the transfer with the authority and claimed that the transfer contract was invalid since it has not been notarised.

In the Precedent 55/2022, the Supreme Court accepts the judgement of the lower court which recognises the validity of the transfer contract on the ground that the parties have performed two-thirds of the contract. Under Article 129.2 of the Civil Code 2015, where the civil transaction established in writing is in breach of compulsory provisions on notarization or certification, and one or more parties have performed at least two-thirds of the obligations in the transaction, the court will, at the request of one or more parties, recognize the validity of such transaction.

Can a non-contractual claim be settled by commercial arbitration in Vietnam?

Vietnamese law is not clear that a non-contractual claim (i.e., a claim which is not based on a breach of contract) could be settled by commercial arbitration. However, Vietnamese courts seem to take the view that non-contractual claims cannot be settled by commercial arbitrations. The answer to this issue is also important to the enforcement and recognition of a foreign arbitral award which deals with non-contractual claims. This is because Vietnamese courts can refuse to recognise a foreign arbitral award if the dispute cannot be settled by arbitration under Vietnamese law.

GSM’s delegation to the Board under Vietnamese law

Under the law of Vietnam, it is unclear whether the General Shareholder’s Meeting (GSM) of a joint stock company (JSC) is allowed to authorise (or delegate) its power to the Board or to what extent can the GSM delegate its power to the Board, if the former is possible. In particular:

  • Article 15.4 of Decree 156/2020 imposes a penalty on the Chairman of the Board if he/she does not report to the GSM on the implementation of the GSM’s resolution except when he/she is authorised by the GSM. This provision suggests that the GSM of a public JSC may delegate the chairperson of the Board to make change to matters already decided by the GSM. Arguably, if the GSM could delegate its power to the chairperson of the Board then arguably the GSM could delegate its power to the Board.

Notice on mortgage over receivables in Vietnam

Mortgage over receivables (thế chấp khoản phải thu) is a very common type of mortgage in Vietnam. Article 33 of Decree 21/2021 provides that a mortgage over receivables does not require a consent by the obligor but such person must be notified by the secured party to know before implementing the obligations in accordance with agreement or law. Under the Civil Code 2015, only a transfer of rights (not mortgage of rights) need to be notified to the obligor. It is not clear if the notice requirement is a perfection requirement and what the consequence is if the notice about the mortgage over receivable is not made to the relevant obligor.