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

February 28, 2023

An Overview of the Discovery Process in Thai Civil Court Proceedings

Subscribe to Updates

For most in-house counsel, the thought of defending a civil case brought against the company is typically an unpleasant proposition—even more so when the matter is proceeding in a foreign or unfamiliar jurisdiction in which the substantive law and court procedures differ from those in one’s home jurisdiction.

But different procedures, even if unfamiliar, can sometimes be advantageous to a defendant. This is particularly true with respect to certain aspects of the discovery process in Thai civil court proceedings. For in-house counsel in certain jurisdictions, the specter of litigation not only entails the potential risks posed to the company and the time and financial costs inevitably incurred, it can also mean lengthy and costly discovery battles. However, as discussed in more detail below, due to the nature of Thai discovery procedures, these types of discovery battles are typically rare in Thai civil court proceedings. Further, due to the limited scope and mechanisms for discovery practice in Thailand, the whole discovery process tends to be rather expedient and straightforward, particularly when compared to that in jurisdictions with extensive discovery practice.

In this article, the authors provide an overview of some of the more notable features of the process for discovery under the Thai Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”), particularly those that may differ from those in jurisdictions with a more vigorous and wide-reaching discovery process. (We note that this article addresses only discovery procedures in civil proceedings in Thai courts; the discovery process in criminal proceedings is subject to the Thai Criminal Procedure Code and differs from the process in civil courts in some respects.)

Rules of Evidence

Before taking a closer look at some of the discovery provisions in the CPC, it is important to understand a few fundamental principles of Thai evidence law, as these provide the general guidelines that a Thai court will use in its assessment of the admissibility of evidence.

The CPC provides that, except for facts that are “generally known,” “indisputable,” or admitted or deemed to be admitted by the parties, the determination of questions of facts in a case shall be made by relying on evidence. The CPC also gives judges wide discretion over proceedings in their courtrooms. With respect to the admissibility of evidence, the court has the discretion to reject any evidence that is superfluous or irrelevant to the subject matter of the case.

These general provisions are significant with respect to the discovery process because they provide the limited scope of evidence that will be admissible in court proceedings, and also establish the judge’s role as the gatekeeper for such evidence.

Discovery Procedures

Discovery procedures are set out in the CPC. However, as noted above, these procedures and the accompanying discovery mechanisms are rather limited in scope. Some of the key features of these procedures include the following:

No litigation holds. Except where otherwise required by law or regulations, Thai law and procedure impose no duty on a party to preserve evidence in anticipation of litigation. (A notable example would be the requirement under the Labor Protection Act that an employer retain certain employment records of an employee for at least two years after the termination of the employee.) Having said that, as discussed below, a party who is unable to produce certain documentary evidence could potentially be faced with an adverse inference imposed by the court due to the absence of that document. Further, the Thai Criminal Code provides that destruction of evidence is a criminal offense.

Limited initial disclosures of evidence. Parties are not required to produce lengthy initial disclosures or mandatory disclosures of the witnesses and documentary evidence on which they intend to rely during trial. Instead, under the CPC, each party is required to submit a list of witnesses and documentary evidence at least seven days before the hearing at which the evidence will be taken. For supplementary lists of additional witnesses or evidence, each party is required to submit this list within fifteen days from the hearing at which the evidence was presented.

As a practical matter, the parties will often agree to exchange initial versions of these lists much earlier in the proceedings, such as at the time of the submission of the complaint or the answer.

In practice, the parties may agree to exchange written witness statements at least seven days before the hearing at which the testimony of that witness will be presented. The court may also prefer this approach, as it saves time by allowing the written statement to effectively take the place of a direct examination. At the hearing, the witness would then be asked to attest to the content of the statement and, if applicable, to provide any additional testimony, after which the parties will proceed with the cross examination of the witness. So while pretrial depositions (whether oral or written) are not included among the discovery mechanisms in a Thai court, parties will often have a written witness statement in advance of the hearing date from which to plan their cross examination of that witness.

No separate procedures for disclosures of expert witnesses or their opinions. As an initial matter, we note that the CPC includes provisions for the use of court-appointed experts under certain circumstances. For such experts, the court can exercise its discretion to require the expert to produce a written opinion. For a party that wishes to rely on the testimony of its own (i.e., not court-appointed) expert witness, there is no separate procedure for the disclosure of that witness or the discovery of his or her testimony. Instead, an expert witness is treated like any other witness and disclosed in accordance with the list of witnesses and evidence mentioned above. Further, the production of expert reports separate from and in addition to the testimony of the expert witness is not contemplated in the CPC. The expert’s opinion will instead be included as part of his or her testimony, either given orally during the trial hearings or provided in advance as part of a witness statement (just as with other witness). Again, as there are no pretrial depositions in Thai court proceedings, the parties will not have the opportunity to examine an opposing expert prior to the trial hearings.

No “fishing expeditions” for documentary evidence (and, accordingly, no need to make large document productions in response to the same). One of the more significant features of the Thai discovery process that distinguishes it from the process in some other jurisdictions is its requirement for specificity in any request for documentary evidence in the possession of the opposing (or a third) party. In other words, the broad requests for extensive types and amounts of documents with which some counsel might be familiar (and frequently inconvenienced) are not part of the discovery mechanisms provided in the CPC.

What the CPC provides instead is a process through which a party can ask the court to issue a subpoena for any documents that it cites in its list of evidence that are in the possession of the opposing party. (The CPC also provides a similar process for documents in the possession of a third party, but for the purposes of this article, we will focus on those with the opposing party.) The relevant provision reads as follows:

Section 123: Where the original of the document which was cited as evidence by any party is in possession of the opposing party, the party who cited such document may, instead of filing a copy thereof, file an application by motion with the Court for an order to direct the opposing party to file the original. If the Court considers that the document is important evidence and the application is well-grounded, it shall issue an order to direct the opposing party to file the original within a reasonable time as the Court deems appropriate. If the opposing party who possessed the original fails to comply with such order, the allegations of the application concerning facts to be proved by the documents shall be deemed to have been admitted by the opposing party.

The language of Section 123 raises several important issues:

  1. The requested document must be known to exist. In other words, the party making the request cannot simply issue a broad and speculative request for documentary evidence that may or may not actually exist. Section 123 anticipates that the requesting party is aware that the document being requested actually exists and is in the possession of the opposing party.
  2. The requested document must be identified with some level of specificity. Again, the requesting party cannot issue a broad request for a wide range or category of documents (e.g., “Any and all email correspondence and other communications between January and June 2021 referring to the incident.”). Instead, the request must be for a specific document or documents that the requesting party knows or has reason to believe is in the possession of the opposing party. While the request could potentially refer to more than one specific document, any multiple documents requested should also be readily identifiable (e.g., “Quarterly sales reports for 2019-2021” or “Email correspondence between Mr. A and Ms. B regarding request for sick leave referenced in March 19, 2020 email to the defendant.”) as opposed to simply being encompassed in a broader request (e.g., “Any and all reports or other communications regarding sales between 2019-2021” or “Any and all correspondence between Mr. A and Ms. B between January and April 2020 regarding request for sick leave.”) The idea is to identify the requested document with enough specificity to enable the producing party to identify the document and determine whether it is actually in its possession.
  3. The court must consider the requested document to be “important evidence.” Even if the two points above are satisfied, a court will not grant a subpoena unless the requested document itself is “important evidence.” So it is not enough that the requesting party believes that while the document itself may not constitute important evidence, there is a possibility that the document could lead to important evidence. The requested document itself must be important. This also relates back to the rules of evidence mentioned earlier, which provide that a judge has the discretion to reject any evidence that is superfluous or irrelevant to the subject matter of the case.
  4. An adverse inference will be drawn against a party that fails to produce the requested document. As noted below, the party from whom a document is requested can object to the subpoena on certain grounds. However, should the court reject the objection and still order the party to produce the document, and should the party fail to do so, the allegations regarding the facts to be proved by the document will be deemed admitted by the opposing party. Similarly, a separate provision of the CPC provides that if a party has damaged, destroyed, or concealed a document with the purpose of preventing the opposing party from citing it as evidence, an adverse inference will also be drawn against the party at fault.

In addition to the above, it should also be noted that refusing to comply with a subpoena is a criminal offense under Thai law, the potential punishments for which can range from imprisonment up to six months, or fines of up to THB 10,000, or both.

Possibility of dismissal of subpoenas issued for documents. If the party to whom a subpoena has been issued objects to the subpoena, it can file a petition to dismiss to the subpoena. The potential grounds for arguing for the dismissal of a subpoena for documents include the following:

  • The requested document is irrelevant to the facts to be proved by the parties or to the subject matter of the case.
  • The request is too broad, too vague, etc., to enable the party to identify the document or to determine whether the document is in its possession.
  • The request is overly burdensome.
  • The requested document does not exist or is not in the party’s possession.
  • Production of the requested document is prohibited by law.
  • Production of the requested document could potentially cause damage to a third party.
  • The requested document is confidential or privileged.

Regarding objections based on confidentiality or privilege, we note that Thai law recognizes attorney-client privilege. Like in other jurisdictions, absent certain circumstances, lawyers in Thailand are prohibited from disclosing confidential information about their clients. Additionally, under the Thai Penal Code, the disclosure of confidential information by a lawyer (among other professions) or the lawyer’s assistant or trainee can constitute a criminal offense under certain circumstances.

In the context of a dispute over the production of a document, however, while a party can object to a subpoena on the basis of confidentiality, privilege, or any of the other grounds mentioned above, the decision of whether to enforce or dismiss the subpoena will be up to the discretion of the court.

Conclusion

The discovery methods and procedures for civil cases under the CPC tend to result in proceedings in which lengthy and costly discovery battles are relatively rare, particularly when compared to discovery practices in the United States or some other jurisdictions with more demanding discovery procedures. For a corporate defendant in a Thai civil case, this can result in saving not only the time and expenses often associated with these discovery battles, but also in reducing the risk of having to produce potentially sensitive and/or damaging documents in response to broad discovery requests. Instead, in accordance with the CPC, a defendant can expect to be asked to respond to more narrow requests for specific documents or a specific range of documents. Even then, a defendant can still object to a subpoena on grounds such as those listed above, but the outcome of any such objection will be solely up to the court. So while a defendant may still end up being required to produce certain documents, this result would come at the end of a relatively efficient, fast, and straightforward discovery process.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 11, 2023
A significant new procedural law for fines in Thailand results in the mass removal of certain types of fines for criminal penalties and alters procedures for certain administrative monetary penalties.   There are generally two types of fines imposed under Thai law: criminal fines and administrative fines. However, there will soon be a type of fine that exists outside of the criminal or administrative legal mechanisms: the phinai fine, which is neither a criminal penalty nor an administrative fine. Instead, a phinai fine—which must be paid to the state—is one assessed in lieu of criminal penalties for less-serious offenses. Perhaps the closest equivalent to a phinai fine would be a “civil” fine, but there is no official translation of Thailand’s first law dedicated to these fines, the Act on Phinai Fine Proceedings B.E. 2565 (2022) (ACFP), which was published in the Government Gazette on October 25, 2022. Before proceeding further to discuss the significance of the new law, a note should be made regarding the term phinai. As there has been no official translation of the ACFP, there is currently no official translation of phinai. Under the ACFP, “to seek a phinai fine” (or prap pen phinai) was determined to have the specific meaning of ordering a phinai penalty offender to pay a phinai fine. The meaning of the term as defined reflects a type of phinai penalty, which is neither a criminal penalty nor an administrative fine. In the future, there is a possibility that the official translation of the ACFP may use a different term. The passage of the ACFP provides Thailand with a special procedural law for all phinai fines, ultimately resulting in a significant change in the categorization and collection of fines and administrative monetary penalties. Other than two sections on administrative preparations that took
Read More
March 30, 2023
Digital asset litigation is one of the most cutting-edge types of litigation in Thailand. There are factual, technical, regulatory, and legal challenges and hurdles for the parties to the dispute throughout all procedural stages. This is mainly because digital assets are different in nature from more conventional types of assets, as they are digitally created and used on a blockchain network. Legal Status The first issue to be aware of in approaching digital asset litigation is the legal status of digital assets. Under Thai law, there are two key terms concerning digital assets’ legal status: “thing” and “property.” Things are tangible objects, while property provides a much wider range of meaning. Property could be anything—including intangible objects that may be of value and able to be appropriated. It is fairly clear that digital assets are not a “thing” since they are not tangible. However, determining whether digital assets are “property” is even more complicated. Although digital assets are intangible objects, one might argue that, unlike fiat money, they do not have any inherent value but are rather conferred value based on certain people’s perspective. (For example, the Bank of Thailand expressed this opinion of bitcoin in 2014.) Some may even argue that digital assets cannot be possessed and therefore cannot be appropriated. According to these arguments, digital assets should not be regarded as a property either. Legal Grounds Determining whether digital assets are things, property, or something else altogether is crucial to any subsequent litigation. In Thailand, the party initiating the lawsuit (the plaintiff) generally has to state the relevant legal grounds for the complaint—that is, the different relevant legal provisions that the court is to apply to the case. These provisions of Thai laws mostly refer only to “things” or to “property,” not both. This often means that
Read More
March 21, 2023
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
Read More
February 24, 2023
On February 20, 2023, the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam submitted a Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts, as well as a Draft Amendment of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts to seek online comment from interested parties. Notably, the Supreme People’s Court has expressed a desire to establish specialized courts such as an IP court and a bankruptcy court. Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts The Supreme People’s Court reviewed the implementation over the past eight years of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts (“LOPC”), which took effect in 2015. Some highlights of the implementation process, as set out in the Supreme People’s Court’s practical report, are as follows: Re-systematization of all levels of courts: The LOPC systematized the court system in Vietnam, including four levels: Supreme People’s Court Three Superior People’s Courts 765 first-instance trial courts (including 702 district courts and 63 provincial courts) 66 appellate courts (including 63 provincial people’s courts and the three Superior People’s Courts) In addition, the Supreme People’s Court established four adjudicating agencies for cassation and reopening (including three Judicial Committees of the Superior People’s Court and the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court). Support departments for the court have been strengthened, and policies have been developed to train judges. Trial results: From June 1, 2015, to April 30, 2022, the courts have settled 3,187,285 cases of all kinds out of a total of 3,334,915 cases handled (95.57%). Most of the remaining cases are newly accepted and still within the time limit for settlement as prescribed by law. On average, the courts have had to deal with about 476,416 cases each year. Draft Amendment of Law on Organization of People’s Courts Despite the notable
Read More