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

Natthawat Siriprasomsap

Associate

Biography

Natthawat Siriprasomsap is an associate at Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution department in Bangkok. Natthawat works with international, regional, and local clients on a wide range of complex litigation and prelitigation involving various international and domestic disputes, related to international trade, construction (particularly on FIDIC contracts), shipping and maritime, white-collar crime, and customs. Natthawat also supports clients in a variety of arbitration matters as well as in enforcing and setting aside arbitral awards.

With extensive experience helping parties achieve workable solutions to legal disputes, Natthawat is an expert in alternative dispute resolution, particularly in arbitration and mediation. Prior to joining Tilleke & Gibbins, Natthawat was a legal counsel at an international arbitration institute in Thailand, where he provided case counseling, case management, and review of rules and regulations.

Natthawat obtained his LLB from Thammasat University, an Advanced LLM in International Dispute Settlement and Arbitration from Leiden University, and an LLM in International Financial Law with merit from King’s College London. Natthawat is on the panel of mediators for the Thailand Arbitration Center and is a member of the Lawyers Council of Thailand.

Experience

  • Successfully defended one of the world’s leading surveying companies in a dispute involving unfounded allegations from a shipper, saving the client from paying potential damages exceeding THB 50 million.
  • Assisted in the defense of an individual against the enforcement of an arbitral award in Thailand, resulting in a favorable outcome.
  • Assisted clients in various industries in appealing Thai Customs Department decisions regarding classification of goods.
  • Represented an international tech company in a series of white-collar crime matters.
  • Worked with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) to assist a client in an arbitration proceeding.
ABOUT Natthawat

Location

Languages

    Thai

    English

Education

    LLM, King’s College London

    LLM, Leiden University

    LLB, Thammasat University

Insights

February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only
January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
May 2, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the latest edition of Doing Business in Thailand, a Q&A-style guide from Thomson Reuters Practical Law that offers an overview of key legal considerations for companies operating in jurisdictions worldwide. The contribution outlines the country’s legal and regulatory framework for foreign investment and business operations and reflects the latest legislative developments. The chapter addresses the following core topics: Legal system: Structure of the courts and the codified nature of Thai law. Foreign investment: Business restrictions under the Foreign Business Act, sector-specific regulations, exchange control rules, and investment incentives. Business vehicles: Overview of partnerships, private and public limited companies, and other legal entities. Employment: Labor protections, employment contracts, foreign worker requirements, and termination procedures. Tax: Corporate and personal income tax, indirect taxes, and tax obligations for residents and non-residents. Intellectual property: Registration and enforcement of patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights. Data protection: Key provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act and related compliance obligations. Competition law: Regulatory framework under the Trade Competition Act. Anti-bribery and corruption: Relevant legislation and enforcement mechanisms. E-commerce and digital business: Legal regime for online transactions and digital platforms. Marketing and advertising: Consumer protection laws and regulations affecting advertising and marketing practices. Product regulation and liability: Safety standards, liability regimes, and roles of enforcement authorities. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The insurance and reinsurance guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the guide, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.

Awards & Rankings

May 11, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has continued to show excellent performance in the recently released Benchmark Litigation 2026 rankings for dispute resolution firms in the Asia-Pacific region. The rankings include two jurisdictions where Tilleke & Gibbins is active: Thailand and Vietnam. Firm Rankings A full summary of the firm’s rankings is provided below: Thailand Commercial & Transactions – Tier 1 Government & Regulatory – Tier 1 Labor & Employment – Tier 1 Intellectual Property – Tier 1 Trade & Customs – Tier 2 Vietnam Commercial & Transactions (Foreign Firms) – Tier 1 Intellectual Property (Foreign Firms) – Tier 1 Labor & Employment (International Firms) – Highly Recommended (top tier awarded in this category) White Collar Crime – Recommended (top tier awarded in this category) Energy & Construction (Foreign Firms) – Tier 2 International Arbitration – Tier 2 Individual Rankings The 2026 edition also recognizes 12 Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers in Thailand—more than any other firm in the jurisdiction—and four in Vietnam. Thailand Alongkorn Tongmee – Trade & Customs Chitchai Punsan – Commercial & Transactions Chusert Supasitthumrong – Labor & Employment John Frangos – Commercial & Transactions Noppramart Thammateeradaycho – Shipping Nuttaphol Arammuang – Intellectual Property Piyawat Vitooraporn – Commercial & Transactions Pongpalin Chantrapirom – Commercial & Transactions Suebsiri Taweepon – Intellectual Property Suruswadee Jaimsuwan – Commercial & Transactions Thawat Damsa-ard – Commercial & Transactions Tiziana Sucharitkul – Commercial & Transactions, Government & Regulatory Vietnam Duc Anh Tran – Commercial & Transactions Linh Duy Mai – Intellectual Property Loc Xuan Le – Intellectual Property Tu Anh Tran – Commercial & Transactions Benchmark Litigation’s annual research is based on interviews with dispute resolution specialists and clients, as well as analysis of recent casework and market developments. To view the full results, please visit the Benchmark Litigation websites for Thailand and Vietnam.

Other Professionals