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​ 

January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More
December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
Read More
December 12, 2025
Similar to other types of corporate disputes, tax-related conflicts often begin with an earnest attempt to resolve matters outside the courtroom. The prospect of engaging in tax litigation can be daunting, given the potential strain on commercial relationships, the legal expenses, and the uncertainty surrounding its resolution. However, there are instances when tax litigation becomes the sole avenue for seeking redress. For individuals and entities contemplating the pursuit of tax-related legal remedies, the Thai legal system offers an accessible, impartial, and equitable platform for dispute resolution. Tilleke & Gibbins’ latest update to Tax Litigation in Thailand provides an outline for navigating tax-related disputes within the Thai legal framework. It aims to equip readers with a fundamental understanding of procedures and practices within the Thai tax litigation landscape. The full guide is available through the button below.
Read More