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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 2, 2024
The Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) announced on April 19, 2024, that it has jointly set up an in-court arbitration pilot project with five courts in Thailand—namely, the Civil Court, Taling Chan Civil Court, Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, Samut Prakan Provincial Court, and Samut Prakan Khwaeng Court. The pilot project launched on May 1, 2024. Pilot Project This project is designed to encourage the parties in cases submitted to these courts to consider having parts of the case, or even the entire case, heard and determined by arbitrators under the Civil Procedural Code (CPC). The objective of the project is to provide faster and more efficient judicial services to the public by reducing the number of cases to be fully tried in the courts through providing an option for parties to engage in in-court arbitration. Still, the court remains largely involved in the process, as the court will consider the award in detail before determining whether to render a judgment in accordance with the award without any edits. Therefore, in-court arbitration favors parties who prefer to have a court judgment instead of an out-of-court arbitral award, which could lead to enforcement challenges under the Arbitration Act. Parties who participate in this pilot project will pay the TAI a fee for its administrative assistance and related services. The TAI will assist in setting up and facilitating meetings, witness hearings, and the necessary logistics pertaining to case files involving the arbitrators, the parties, and the court. After the arbitrators hear the case, the case files, including the witness statements, exhibits, and reports during the arbitration proceedings, are collected and sent back to the respective court along with the award. Under the pilot project, the arbitrators will issue awards within 30 days of the last day of the trial or
Read More
April 18, 2024
In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by
Read More
April 17, 2024
Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding
Read More
April 11, 2024
Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any
Read More