Maritime Law · 15.09.2026

Ship Arrest in Vietnam: Grounds, Procedure and Release

How a ship arrest in Vietnam works: the claims that carry a right of arrest, the 30-day limit, the security that releases a vessel, and a decided collision case where the ship was held for a month.

Lawyer UnilawReading time: 9 min

By Lawyer Nguyen Nhu Hai – UniLaw LLC

A ship arrest in Vietnam comes from a court, not from a port authority, and it runs on a short clock. If you are holding a maritime claim against a vessel calling at Hai Phong, Cai Mep or Nha Be, the arrest is usually the only leverage you will get; if you are the owner or the P&I correspondent on the other side, everything turns on putting up acceptable security fast. This page sets out the grounds, the procedure, the security that releases a vessel, and the deadlines that quietly kill claims.

Ship arrest in Vietnam: a decided case, one month under arrest

Judgment No. 09/2021/KDTM-PT of 22 January 2021 — Superior People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City, upholding first-instance Judgment No. 1719/2019/KDTM-ST of the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court.

On 19 April 2019 the vessel MP — IMO 9561344, Marshall Islands flag — struck the vessel TP 45 while TP 45 lay at anchor at Nha Be, Ho Chi Minh City. The Ho Chi Minh City Maritime Administration recorded the casualty on 24 April. On 25 April 2019 the court issued Arrest Decision No. 420/2019/QD-HGTB, arresting MP to secure the maritime claim.

MP stayed under arrest for close to a month. On 20 May 2019 the registered owner filed for release and lodged a letter of undertaking worth USD 5,781,888.39 — about VND 134.4 billion — from a Vietnamese marine insurer. So the court released the vessel.

Why the bareboat charter defence failed

Only after release did the owner argue it was not liable at all: the owner had bareboat chartered MP on the BARECON 2017 form for 60 months from 29 June 2018. Therefore, it said, the bareboat charterer should answer for the collision. The Court of Appeal refused the argument on two grounds. First, the owner had said nothing about the bareboat charter while the ship was under arrest — the owner raised it only once the vessel was free. Second, clauses 43.3 and 53 of the owner’s own bareboat charter obliged the charterer to notify the owner if the ship was arrested and required the owner to obtain release, with a right of recourse afterwards. The court held the owner squarely liable and ordered it to pay VND 78,777,007,456, with interest at 10% per year from the enforcement request.

Three things a claimant should take from it. The arrest is what produced the money. Nothing moved until the court held the vessel. A letter of undertaking from an approved insurer is the normal route out, and courts accept it at full claim value. And a bareboat charter does not automatically move liability away from the registered owner; the charter’s own indemnity wording can put it right back.

When a ship arrest in Vietnam is available

Two questions arise, in order. Does the claim carry a right of arrest? And can you arrest this particular vessel for it?

Article 139 of the Maritime Code 2015 lists the maritime claims that give rise to the right of arrest. They include every claim carrying a maritime lien under Article 41 — crew wages, repatriation and social-insurance contributions; death, injury and other personal harm directly connected with the operation of the ship; tonnage dues, maritime safety charges and other port dues; salvage remuneration; and non-contractual loss or damage to property directly connected with the operation of the ship. Article 139 then adds pollution damage and the cost of preventing or remedying it, wreck-removal and wreck-preservation costs, agreements relating to the use or hire of a ship whether in a charterparty or otherwise, agreements relating to carriage of goods or passengers, and loss of or damage to cargo.

Which vessel you can actually arrest

Article 140 then asks who is liable. The court will arrest where the person liable on the claim is the owner and is still the owner when the arrest is made; or the bareboat charterer is liable and is still the bareboat charterer, or has since become the owner; or the claim rests on a mortgage over that ship; or the claim concerns ownership or possession of that ship; or a maritime lien over that ship secures the claim.

That second limb matters commercially. A claimant can arrest a ship on bareboat charter for the charterer’s liabilities. And, as Judgment No. 09/2021 shows, the owner may still end up paying.

Which court orders a ship arrest in Vietnam

This changed recently, and most English-language guidance has not caught up.

Article 129 defines arrest as a court decision that stops a ship moving, or limits her movement, to secure a maritime claim, to apply an interim measure, to enforce a civil judgment or to give mutual legal assistance. So a port authority cannot arrest a ship; only a court can.

Article 130 then names that court. Under the Maritime Code as consolidated in Document No. 52/VBHN-VPQH of 18 March 2026, competence sits with the regional people’s court for the place where the port is at which the target vessel is operating. Where a port has several terminals falling under different regional courts, the court for the terminal where the vessel is operating decides.

The same article gives the court already hearing the civil case, or the regional people’s court where the arbitral tribunal has accepted the dispute, power to order arrest as an interim measure. The arrest decision goes to the port authority in two copies: one for the authority to act on, one to be handed to the master.

Note the change. Before Law No. 81/2025/QH15, which amended the Law on Organisation of People’s Courts with effect from 1 July 2025, this competence lay with the provincial people’s court. Filing at the wrong court costs days you do not have inside a 30-day arrest.

The 30-day clock on a ship arrest in Vietnam

Article 141 caps an arrest to secure a maritime claim at 30 days from the day the ship is arrested. That is the whole window unless you use it.

Within those 30 days, if the arresting party commences court proceedings or refers the dispute to arbitration and continues to press for arrest, the arrest no longer ends on the 30-day limit; it ends when the court decides whether or not to grant arrest as an interim measure in the substantive case. In practice this is the step that separates a claimant who recovers from one who watches the ship sail. So you have to prepare the security demand and the substantive claim together, not in sequence.

Getting the vessel released

Article 142 says when a court must release an arrested ship immediately:

the owner, charterer or operator has provided substitute security or paid the debt in full;
another party has guaranteed the financial obligation, or there is a letter of undertaking from a reputable insurance organisation — the Ministry of Finance publishes the list of qualifying insurers;
the party who applied for the arrest asks for release;
the court has set aside the arrest decision; or
the period of arrest the court fixed has expired.

The form and amount of substitute security are for the parties to agree; failing agreement, the court fixes them. Article 143 allows the owner, charterer, operator, master, the arresting party and other interested persons to apply for release — which is why, in Judgment No. 09/2021, the registered owner could apply even while denying liability.

The insurer letter is the practical route. It is faster than a cash deposit, it does not tie up working capital, and Article 142 puts it on the same footing as payment. The constraint is the Ministry of Finance list: an undertaking from an insurer outside it is not a ground for release.

Re-arresting the same ship

Article 144 is the rule owners rely on. Once the court has released a ship, or the owner has given substitute security for the maritime claim, no one can arrest it again on the same claim. The exceptions are narrow: where the total security still falls short of the obligation and is worth less than the ship the court released, or where the guarantor has not performed or is unable to perform.

The lesson for a claimant is to quantify the claim properly before accepting security. Security you accept too low is very hard to top up later.

Deadlines that end claims

Arrest secures a claim; it does not preserve it. For collision, Article 290 gives two years from the date of the casualty, and one year from payment to recover a contribution overpaid under Article 287(4). Cargo and charterparty claims run on their own, shorter periods, and a contractual time bar in the bill of lading or charter will usually bite first.

Judgment No. 09/2021 also shows a procedural trap. The claimant filed a supplementary damages claim of VND 5,350,546,294 on 15 July 2020, after the parties had lodged their appeals. The Court of Appeal refused to consider it under Articles 244 and 284 of the Civil Procedure Code because it went beyond the original claim and the original appeal. Quantify the full loss before you file, not after.

Foreign owners and foreign documents

The defendant in Judgment No. 09/2021 was a Marshall Islands company, and it ran its whole defence on foreign documents: the BARECON charter, the addendum, the delivery certificate, the hire invoices. The court accepted them as evidence under Articles 93, 95 and 478 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015 because the owner had them consularly legalised — in that case at the Vietnamese Embassy in Singapore. Documents without legalisation are unlikely to carry weight. Legalisation also takes time that a 30-day arrest window does not always allow. Start it the day the casualty happens.

Legal basis

Maritime Code 2015 (Law No. 95/2015/QH13), consolidated as Document No. 52/VBHN-VPQH of 18 March 2026 — Article 41 (claims giving rise to a maritime lien); Article 42 (order of priority); Article 43 (one-year period of a maritime lien); Article 129 (definition of arrest); Article 130 (competent court, as amended by Law No. 81/2025/QH15 from 1 July 2025); Article 139 (claims giving rise to the right of arrest); Article 140 (conditions for arrest); Article 141 (30-day limit); Article 142 (grounds for release); Article 143 (who may apply for release); Article 144 (re-arrest); Articles 229–230 (bareboat charter); Article 287 (fault and compensation in collision); Article 288 (force majeure and accidental collision); Article 290 (time bar for collision claims).
Civil Code 2015 — Articles 584, 589, 597 and 601 (non-contractual liability, including liability for sources of extreme danger).
Civil Procedure Code 2015 — Articles 93, 95 and 478 (evidence and legalised foreign documents); Articles 244 and 284 (scope of claim and of appeal).

How we work a ship arrest in Vietnam

Unilaw acts on both sides of a ship arrest in Vietnam — for claimants securing a maritime claim, and for owners, managers and P&I correspondents getting a vessel released. Because the arrest runs on a 30-day clock, the first hours decide the outcome. You have to move the casualty record from the maritime administration, the quantum, the security position and the substantive filing all at once. We have offices in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and Nha Trang.

For the wider practice see our Vietnam maritime lawyer page, and for further judgments and commentary, our maritime law library. If the underlying claim is damage or shortage to goods, see cargo claim in Vietnam, or delivery without bill of lading where the goods went to the wrong receiver.