Vietnam Business Law is a website managed by lawyers of Venture North Law Limited (VNLaw). Venture North Law Limited (VNLaw) is a Vietnamese commercial law firm. We won the Rising Law Firm of the Year Award at the Southeast Asia Law Awards for the years 2020 and 2021 held by The Legal 500. Very few Vietnamese law firms have achieved a similar regional recognition.
The below diagram summarises the key steps in an arbitration proceeding at Vietnam International Arbitration Center (VIAC) and Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A pdf version can be downloaded here. This post is written by Ha Kieu Anh.
The UK court has recently considered that an Uber driver is a worker of Uber under UK employment law. In this post, we will consider if similar conclusion could be reached under Vietnamese law using the UK court’s reasoning. Under Labour Code 2019, an employee means a person working for an employer pursuant to an agreement, such person is paid wages and he/she is subjected to management and supervision by the employer. Based on the definition of employee under the Labour Code 2019, it is more likely than not a Uber driver or, since Uber has left Vietnam, a similar “gig” driver could argue that he/she is an employee of the platform owner instead of a third party contractor using the arguments raised by UK court.
The table below provides a more detailed analysis:
Under Vietnamese law, it is a common understanding that the obligee (e.g, the lender) must be the secured party (e.g., the mortgagee) in a secured transaction although the securing party (e.g., the mortgagor) could be different from the obligor (e.g., the borrower). In fact, this has been the position under Decree 163/2006 for several years. However, the new Decree 21/2021 replacing Decree 163/2006 from 15 May 2021 removes the express description that the oblige is the secured party in a secured obligation. It is not clear if this change provides for the possibility that the secured party needs not to be the obligee in a secured transaction.
In this post, we discuss some key issues under the model PPA used for roof top solar system (RTS) under Circular 18/2020. This post is written by Le Thanh Nhat and edited by Nguyen Quang Vu.
Limited ability to amend the RTS PPA
1.1. Under the laws of Vietnam, the use of the RTS PPA for sale and purchase of power with EVN is mandatory, and the parties are only allowed to supplement the RTS PPA to clarify the parties’ rights and obligations and may not change the main contents of the RTS PPA. The supplementary content injected by the parties must also be consistent with, and must therefore not contradict, the RTS PPA. Under the RTS PPA, the parties can agree on the following additional information: