You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

March 21, 2023

Appealing a Thai Court Order Allowing a Class Action

From the perspective of a plaintiff (or a group of plaintiffs) considering initiating a class action in a Thai court, a primary benefit of proceeding as a class action is the ability to aggregate claims that would otherwise be too small or too costly to bring individually. Where one plaintiff might lack a claim large enough to make pursuing litigation a cost-effective option, the combined claims of many plaintiffs could surpass that threshold. Similarly, the prospect of representing a number of plaintiffs, along with the potential legal fees that could be awarded with a win, should serve as an incentive for counsel to represent a class of plaintiffs who, acting individually, would otherwise not be able to engage a lawyer interested in taking their case.

For these same reasons, a defendant will most likely—although not necessarily always—oppose a plaintiff’s request that a case be allowed to proceed as a class action. From a defense perspective, preventing a case from proceeding as a class action could be a significant strategic goal, as it could mean that individual plaintiffs, as well as their counsel, would lack the financial incentive to pursue potentially costly litigation for their separate, relatively low-value claims.

Potential defendants, therefore, may benefit considerably by understanding how a Thai court determines whether a case can proceed as a class action and, if it does, the potential options for a defendant that objects to this determination.

The Court’s Initial Determination: Class Action or Ordinary Litigation?

When a named plaintiff requests that a case proceed as a class action, that plaintiff must present the case to the court in accordance with the prerequisites stipulated by Thai law. The Civil Procedure Code (CPC) sets out the prerequisites for a case to proceed as a class action. Considerations include:

  • whether the nature of the claim and the monetary relief sought are based upon allegations of the same manner;
  • whether the plaintiff shares the common characteristics of the members of the class;
  • why the number of members of the potential class would cause difficulty and inconvenience if the case were to proceed as an ordinary case;
  • why class action proceedings will be fairer and more efficient than ordinary case proceedings; and
  • why the named plaintiff and his or her lawyer are competent to carry out the proceedings adequately and fairly.

At this initial stage, the court plays an important role in discovering the facts of the case and determining whether it fits these prerequisites. That is, the matters that the court must decide at this stage focus on the nature of the claims rather than on the merits of the case.

A defendant that wishes to prevent a case from proceeding as a class action has a number of options at this stage. Among these, the defendant has the right to object to the plaintiff’s petition. (Other possibilities—beyond the scope of this article—include agreeing with the other parties to proceed with mediation or arbitration, or reaching some other sort of agreement to conclude the matter.)

In objecting to the plaintiff’s petition, the defendant has the right to present witnesses during the inquiry stage, when the court will determine whether it will grant the plaintiff’s request to have the case proceed as a class action instead of as a common case. In making its determination, the court will review the facts and consider the arguments of both parties to assess whether the case fits the CPC prerequisites mentioned above.

Should the court grant the plaintiff’s petition, this puts the defendant in the position of having to defend against all potential claims determined to be within the scope of the class action.

Appealing a Court Order Allowing a Class Action

Parties may appeal the decision on whether the case should proceed as a class action to the relevant appellate court. If the court’s determination is that the case is to proceed as a class action, the defendant has seven days to appeal the court’s order—though it may be possible to request an extension, depending on the facts. In effect, the case would be at a stay until the appellate court renders an order, which would be the final word on whether the case should proceed as a class action.

The points that the defendant can raise to appeal the order are not limited to the CPC prerequisites identified above, as there could be other potential bases for the appeal, depending on the defendant’s case strategy. Nevertheless, the focus at this stage of the case is on whether the case fits those prerequisites.

In the appeal process, the appellate court typically reviews only the lower court’s decision—not additional information from the parties. This means that all facts potentially beneficial to the appeal need to have been presented and included during the witness examination stage in the court of first instance. Therefore, it is essential for parties to provide counsel with full understanding of the case from the beginning, as this can potentially affect the case throughout the appellate process. Though possible, it is unlikely that the appellate court would consider further information beyond what was already presented in the court of first instance.

Even when the order to proceed with the case as a class action is final, the case could still later proceed as an ordinary case if the court of first instance determines that it is no longer beneficial (to the members of the class) or necessary for the case to proceed as a class action, or if the original attorney on the plaintiff side withdraws or is deemed unable to fairly protect the class and replacement counsel is not secured within the timeframe specified by the court. Again, in making this determination (i.e., whether to allow a class action to continue as such), the court will revisit the prerequisites that were used as the basis of the case order on proceeding with class action—and could also inquire into the relevant facts. Court orders of this type are final and cannot be appealed.

Further Proceedings and Class Action Strategy

A plaintiff’s request that a case proceed as a class action case is always addressed first. The actual merits of the case are heard at a later stage, after the first court’s order on whether the case should proceed as a class action is final. Because this initial determination must take place before the merits can be considered, it can take longer for such cases to become final than it generally does for ordinary cases not proceeding as a class action. Also—as described above—even during the class action proceedings, the court of first instance can still revisit the necessity of the case proceeding as a class action.

In terms of strategy, defendants hoping to prevent a case from proceeding as a class action have a number of potential opportunities to achieve that outcome. But each case is unique, and class action proceedings typically involve complex matters involving numerous plaintiffs and a complex array of facts and circumstances. Efficient and effective coordination among the members of the defendant’s team is essential in order to ensure procedural fairness and the best possible outcome of the case. Defendants should be sure to enlist experienced legal counsel and develop a comprehensive litigation strategy that covers every credible possibility to achieve their desired result.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple