The Application of Legal Precedents in Resolving Civil Disputes – New Points from the Precedents Taking Effect from 1 July 2026 and Matters Requiring Attention

On 25 June 2026, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court issued a Decision publishing new legal precedents, which officially took effect on 1 July 2026. The continued development of the system of legal precedents reflects not only the requirement to improve the law through adjudicative practice, but also contributes to enhancing the stability, uniformity, and predictability of dispute resolution. For civil, business, and commercial disputes, many legal arguments established in the new precedents may have a direct impact on determining the rights and obligations of the parties, the method of evaluating evidence, and the manner of applying the provisions of the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Code in specific cases.

I. New points in the 2026 batch of published legal precedents

On 29 May 2026, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court issued Decision No. 162/QĐ-CA publishing eight (08) new legal precedents, taking effect from 1 July 2026. This batch of published precedents continues to affirm the role of legal precedents in unifying the application of the law, improving the quality of adjudication, and enhancing the predictability of judicial activity. A study of the new precedents reveals three notable trends.

First, strengthening the control of the legality of State administrative management activities while protecting the lawful rights and interests of individuals and organizations. Notable in this regard is Precedent No. 90/2026/AL, in which the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court clarified the authority of the courts to consider the legality of a Certificate of Land Use Rights that had been issued in violation of the applicable regulations, including in cases where the land use rights had already been transferred to a third party.

Second, emphasizing the resolution of disputes based on the true nature of the underlying legal relationship, rather than merely on the form of the transaction or of the administrative decision. This is a thread running through many of the precedents published in 2026, clearly reflecting a trend of interpreting the law according to the regulatory purpose of the legal norm and of ensuring substantive fairness in adjudication.

Third, continuing to affirm the role of legal precedents in unifying the application of law. Against a backdrop of numerous legal provisions being amended and supplemented, legal precedents have become an important tool enabling courts to apply the law according to a consistent methodology, while also providing a basis for lawyers, enterprises, and litigants to assess legal risk in advance and to select an appropriate dispute-resolution strategy.

Overall, this batch of eight new legal precedents not only adds to the sources of precedent available for adjudication, but also reflects a shift in the Supreme People’s Court’s thinking on the development of precedents. The focus is no longer on resolving a single gap in the law, but rather on forming adjudicative principles capable of uniform application across multiple categories of disputes.

II. The value of the new legal precedents for the resolution of civil disputes and the uniform application of law

The legal precedents taking effect from 1 July 2026 reflect a new stage in the thinking of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court in developing and applying precedents. Whereas earlier precedents were mainly focused on interpreting legal provisions that were subject to multiple interpretations, this batch of precedents is oriented more towards forming adjudicative principles capable of uniform application across many categories of disputes.

1. Precedent No. 90/2026/AL – Refining the mechanism for controlling the legality of Certificates of Land Use Rights

Among the precedents published in 2026, Precedent No. 90/2026/AL is one of those with the greatest impact on the practical resolution of land disputes. The value of this precedent does not lie in the resolution of a specific case, but rather in clarifying the boundary between the administrative management authority of a State agency and the adjudicatory power of the courts when considering the legality of a Certificate of Land Use Rights.

The case arose from the issuance, by a competent authority, of a Certificate of Land Use Rights that overlapped with an area of land already certified to another person. After the certificate was issued, the land use rights were subsequently transferred to a third party. When the dispute arose, the question was whether the fact that the asset had already been transferred deprived the court of its power to consider the legality of the certificate. It was precisely this difference in perception among the levels of adjudication that led the Judicial Council to select this case for development into a legal precedent.

The core value of the precedent lies in the Judicial Council’s clear distinction between two independent legal mechanisms. On the one hand, there is the authority of the land management agency to revoke a certificate under the Law on Land. On the other hand, there is the power of the court to examine the legality of an administrative decision when resolving a case. These two mechanisms have different grounds, purposes, and scopes of application, and therefore cannot be conflated. Accordingly, the fact that the land law does not provide for revocation of a certificate in certain circumstances does not mean that the court loses its power to consider the legality of an administrative decision that has already been issued.

This reasoning is of particular significance against a background in which previous adjudicative practice held a range of differing views. If the mere fact that land use rights had been transferred to a third party were sufficient grounds to refuse to consider the legality of the certificate, then unlawfully issued administrative decisions could continue to exist and serve as the basis for further transactions. Precedent No. 90/2026/AL has affirmed the principle of controlling the legality of administrative decisions through adjudicative activity, thereby contributing to ensuring the strict enforcement of the law and consistency in land management.

2. Precedent No. 87/2026/AL – Refining the principle for handling secured property and ensuring the safety of transactions

Precedent No. 87/2026/AL focuses on unifying the application of the law on secured transactions, in particular the principle for determining the order of priority of payment when handling secured property. This is a matter of significant importance against a background of increasingly complex credit and commercial relationships, involving multiple parties who each hold an interest in the same asset.

The core point of the precedent is the determination that the right of priority of payment does not arise from the time of filing suit, handling the secured property, or participating in proceedings, but rather is established from the time the secured transaction takes effect and becomes effective against third parties in accordance with law. Accordingly, correctly determining the time at which a security right is formed and perfected¹⁰ is the decisive factor for the order of priority among the various parties holding rights in the same asset.

3. Unifying the understanding of procedural law

Notable in this group is Precedent No. 86/2026/AL, concerning the grounds for reviewing a legally effective judgment or decision under the reopening procedure in a business or commercial case. This precedent arose from the practical reality that many courts held differing views on the concept of “newly discovered circumstances” and the conditions for lodging a protest under the reopening procedure. In some cases, the mere appearance of a document not previously used during the trial was treated as sufficient grounds for reopening; in others, even where circumstances capable of changing the nature of the case were discovered, the court still declined to reconsider a judgment that had already taken legal effect. This very inconsistency affected both the stability of judgments and litigants’ right to be treated fairly.

In addition to Precedent No. 86/2026/AL, Precedent No. 85/2026/AL and Precedent No. 88/2026/AL further supplement important principles concerning the identification of parties to proceedings. Although arising in different fields, both precedents stem from the same underlying reality: an incomplete or incorrect identification of the persons holding related rights and obligations may lead to an incomplete resolution of the case, affecting the effectiveness of the judgment and giving rise to new disputes at a later date.

With respect to Precedent No. 85/2026/AL, the Judicial Council clarified the need to fully identify all insurance enterprises participating in proceedings in disputes arising from a co-insurance contract. This is not merely a procedural matter, but relates directly to the scope of the rights and obligations of each insurance enterprise and to the enforceability of the judgment once it takes effect. If a party holding related rights or obligations is omitted, the judgment risks failing to fully resolve the entire disputed relationship, giving rise to further lawsuits and increasing litigation costs for the parties.

Precedent No. 88/2026/AL, meanwhile, approaches the matter from the perspective of protecting personal rights in a marriage and family dispute. The Judicial Council did not deny the role of an authorized representative, but at the same time affirmed that, in respect of legal relationships closely tied to personal rights – in particular the right of direct custody of a child – a grant of authority cannot extinguish the direct responsibility of the person holding the right and obligation as provided by law. This approach reflects a consistent position that, in civil proceedings, ensuring the correct identification of the parties to a case is not merely a matter of complying with procedural order, but is also a condition for enabling the court to fully assess personal factors, the interests of the child, and the public interest.

4. From resolving specific cases to shaping principles for the application of law

A notable point when studying the full set of eight precedents taking effect from 1 July 2026 is that the Judicial Council did not select these cases merely because of the complexity of the disputes involved, but because each case raised a legal issue capable of giving rise to multiple interpretations and differing methods of application in practice. In other words, the value of a legal precedent lies not in the outcome for the individual litigants, but in the legal principle drawn from the process of resolving that case.

With respect to Precedent No. 83/2026/AL, the issue at stake was not merely the liability of an insurance enterprise to pay compensation in one specific case, but rather a unified understanding of the scope of an insurance enterprise’s liability where the competent authority is unable to identify the person who caused the damage. In practice, this is not an uncommon situation, particularly in traffic accidents where the person who caused the accident has fled the scene or cannot be identified. Approached mechanically, the failure to identify the person who caused the damage could become grounds for denying insurance liability altogether. The Judicial Council, however, adopted a different approach: assessing the purpose of the compulsory insurance regime and the legislative intent behind the mechanism designed to protect injured parties. It was precisely this purposive approach that allowed the precedent to move beyond the scope of a single case and become a guiding basis for many similar disputes in the future.

Precedent No. 84/2026/AL, meanwhile, reflects a different aspect of adjudicative activity: the harmonization between respecting the parties’ right of self-determination and the requirement to protect certain interests to which the law accords priority. Although arising in the field of marriage and family, the Judicial Council’s reasoning is significant not only for adoption relationships, but also demonstrates a consistent view that, for relationships bearing on personal status, the application of law cannot be based solely on the will of the parties, but must also fully take into account the interests of the minor, the humanitarian objectives of the law, and the social values requiring protection.

Taken together as a coherent whole, Precedents 83 through 90 reveal that the Judicial Council is pursuing three overarching directions.

First, prioritizing the application of the law according to the true nature of the underlying legal relationship. This is a thread running from Precedent No. 90 on the annulment of a Certificate of Land Use Rights, to Precedent No. 87 on secured transactions, to Precedent No. 83 on insurance liability. In every case, the Judicial Council chose to resolve the dispute based on the true legal nature of the relationship at issue, rather than solely on the form of the transaction or the title of the document concerned.

Second, ensuring a balance between the stability of legal relationships and the requirement to protect justice. This thinking is clearly reflected in Precedent No. 86/2026/AL on the reopening procedure, as well as Precedent No. 90/2026/AL on the annulment of a Certificate of Land Use Rights. The Judicial Council did not absolutize any single value, but consistently sought a point of balance between the need for stability in civil transactions and the responsibility to correct serious errors in State administrative management or adjudicative activity.

Third, enhancing the predictability of judicial activity. This is perhaps the most important value of the 2026 batch of published precedents. Once legal principles have been established through precedent, the proceedings-conducting agencies will have a consistent basis for resolving similar cases; at the same time, lawyers, enterprises, and members of the public will be better placed to assess legal risk in advance, select an appropriate course of conduct, and reduce unnecessary disputes. It is precisely this predictability that increases society’s confidence in adjudicative activity and contributes to building a transparent and stable legal environment.

Conclusion

It may be affirmed that this batch of eight new legal precedents not only adds to the number of precedents applied in practice, but also reflects a clear shift in the Supreme People’s Court’s thinking on the development of precedent. Rather than focusing on filling gaps in the law, as in the previous stage, these precedents are oriented more towards unifying the methodology for applying the law, standardizing judicial reasoning, and improving the quality of adjudication. This is also why the value of these precedents is not confined to the scope of the individual case, but has become an important point of reference for advisory, litigation, and dispute-resolution work across many different fields.

Should you require in-depth legal advice, please kindly contact:

Consulting – Litigation Lawyer: Nguyen Thi Hoa

• – Email: info@bizlawyer.vn
• – Tel: 086.885.1900

Respectfully./.