SCOPE OF LAWSUIT AND RIGHT TO CHANGE AND SUPPLEMENT REQUESTS OF THE LICENSEE UNDER THE CURRENT CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

SCOPE OF INITIATION OF LAWSUIT AND RIGHT TO CHANGE AND SUPPLEMENT THE REQUEST OF THE LICENSEE UNDER THE CURRENT CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

In civil proceedings, the "right to self-determination" of the litigant is the main axis of the entire trial process. This is recorded in Article 5 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, according to which:
Clause 1: The litigant has the right to decide to initiate a lawsuit;
Clause 2: The litigant has the right to terminate or change his/her request.
This provision both ensures human rights and limits the scope that the Court is allowed to resolve. However, when put into practice, the application gives rise to a series of difficulties that, if not handled properly, can easily cause the judgment to be annulled or amended.

I. SCOPE OF SUIT
The scope of the lawsuit is the scope that the Court must absolutely respect, based on Article 5, Clause 1 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code:
“The Court shall only resolve civil cases within the scope of the petition and request.”
In addition, in Articles 186–194 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, the law clearly stipulates:
Content of the petition (Article 189),
Right to make a counterclaim (Article 200),
Right to make an independent request (Article 201).
Thus, the scope of the lawsuit is determined through three types of petitions:
Petition (Article 189)
Counterclaim of the defendant (Article 200, Clause 3)
Independent request of the person with related rights and obligations (Article 201, Clause 2)
Common errors that cause the judgment to be overturned
a. Resolution beyond the scope of the lawsuit
Absolutely prohibited under Article 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.
For example: The Plaintiff requests 300m² of land, but the Court declares 400m² → serious procedural violations.
b. Failure to resolve all requests
Violation of Article 266 of the Civil Procedure Code (The Trial Panel must resolve all requests).
If the Plaintiff requests both principal and interest, but the Court only declares principal → not fully resolved.

II. RIGHT TO CHANGE - SUPPLEMENT REQUESTS UNDER ARTICLES 70, 71, 72, 73 of the Civil Procedure Code
The 2015 Civil Procedure Code fully stipulates the right to change/supplement each subject:
Clause 4, Article 70: The litigant has the right to maintain, change, and supplement the request.
Article 71.2: The plaintiff has the right to change the content of the lawsuit request.
Article 72.4: The defendant has the right to make a counterclaim.
Article 73.1: A person with related rights and obligations has the right to make an independent request.
However, this right is not unlimited, but is bound by the time and scope.

III. TIME TO CHANGE/ADD THE REQUEST—CORE PROVISIONS
1. Before the opening of the meeting to examine, access, and publicize evidence
Freely change and supplement, even beyond the scope of the original request.
Legal basis:
Article 200.3: The defendant can only request a counterclaim before the meeting.
Article 201.2: The related person can only request independently before the meeting.
Official Dispatch 01/2017/GD-TANDTC, Section IV.7: “The Court accepts the Plaintiff’s change or addition of the request before the opening of the meeting…” This means: This stage is the widest procedural window, the Court is required to accept.
2. At and after the opening of the meeting to examine and disclose evidence
According to Official Dispatch 01/2017/GD-TANDTC – Section IV.7: “At the meeting and after the meeting… the Court only accepts the change if it does not exceed the scope of the initial request.”→ This is the stage of “locking” the request.
→ If it exceeds the scope → it is rejected.
3. At the first instance trial
Applying Article 244, Clause 1 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code: “The panel of judges only accepts changes and additions to requests if they do not exceed the original scope.”→ The court only accepts changes if they do not:
Create new legal relationships;
Increase the defendant’s obligations;
Change the value of the dispute.

IV. WHAT IS “EXCEEDING THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL REQUEST”?
Through the synthesis of documents sent by Boss Long, there are 2 groups of criteria:
1. Exceeding the scope when a new legal relationship arises
For example: Claiming land → adding a claim for compensation for health damage. → Creating a compensation relationship outside the contract ⇒ exceeding the scope.
2. Exceeding the scope when increasing the defendant's obligations
For example: Filing a lawsuit to claim 100 million → at the new trial, requesting interest according to Article 468 of the 2015 Civil Code.
→ No new relationship arises, but increases the obligation → exceeding the scope.
This viewpoint is based on:
Article 244 of the Civil Procedure Code
Article 266 of the Civil Procedure Code (resolving the entire case but must ensure the right to litigate)

V. IMPACT ON THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FILED LAWSUIT
If the change/addition causes a new legal relationship to appear → the statute of limitations is calculated according to that relationship.
For example: Land transfer dispute → adding a request to claim a loan.
→ Applying Article 429 of the 2015 Civil Code: 3-year statute of limitations.

VI. PROBLEMS IN PRACTICAL TRIAL
1. There is a legitimate reason but the request is submitted late
→ The Civil Procedure Code does not have an exception clause, leading to inconsistent handling.
2. The person involved does not request independently but the plaintiff requests the Court to resolve
→ The Court is not allowed to resolve according to Article 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.
3. “Contribution” in land disputes
Many Courts consider it themselves even without a request → beyond the scope of the lawsuit.

VII. CONCLUSION
Based on the entire legal provisions, it can be systematized as follows:
Article 5: determines the scope of the Court's jurisdiction.
Articles 70–73: clearly defines the right to change and supplement the request of each subject.
Articles 200–201: time limit for counterclaims and independent requests.
Article 210: time to "finalize" the request at the evidence meeting.
Article 244: limit for changes at the trial.
Official Letter 01/2017: practical guidance, especially the scope of changes and supplements.
Article 266: The Panel of Judges must resolve all requests.
This system creates a "relatively complete legal framework", but there are certainly still "gaps" that make the practical application inconsistent and require new guiding Resolutions of the Supreme People's Court's Judicial Council.

MSc Lawyer Nguyen Hoang Long

SCOPE OF LAWSUIT AND RIGHT TO CHANGE AND SUPPLEMENT REQUESTS OF THE LICENSEE UNDER THE CURRENT CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

Practices

Team of Lawyer

RIGHT TO INVITE LAWYERS AND RIGHT TO VISIT THE DEFENDANT DURING DETENTION: LEGAL BASIS, ...

NOTARIZATION OF CONTRACTS AND TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING FOREIGN ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO ...

RESOLVING LABOR DISPUTES INCLUDES FOREIGN ELEMENTS UNDER CURRENT LAW

REGULATIONS ON PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY RESIDENCE UNDER CURRENT RESIDENCE LAW

RELEASE IN CRIMINAL CASES UNDER CURRENT LAW

CONTRACTS MUST BE IN WRITTEN ACCORDING TO VIETNAMESE LAW (UPDATED TO 2025)

SCOPE OF LAWSUIT AND RIGHT TO CHANGE AND SUPPLEMENT REQUESTS OF THE LICENSEE UNDER THE CURRENT CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

Practices

Team of Lawyer

RIGHT TO INVITE LAWYERS AND RIGHT TO VISIT THE DEFENDANT DURING DETENTION: LEGAL BASIS, ...

NOTARIZATION OF CONTRACTS AND TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING FOREIGN ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO ...

RESOLVING LABOR DISPUTES INCLUDES FOREIGN ELEMENTS UNDER CURRENT LAW

REGULATIONS ON PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY RESIDENCE UNDER CURRENT RESIDENCE LAW

RELEASE IN CRIMINAL CASES UNDER CURRENT LAW

CONTRACTS MUST BE IN WRITTEN ACCORDING TO VIETNAMESE LAW (UPDATED TO 2025)

Modal title