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​ 

September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
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
Read More
June 25, 2025
In Thailand, in-court business rehabilitation is a legal proceeding that enhances a debtor’s chance to restructure business operations for corporate debtors who are unable to repay their debts. The purpose of this proceeding is to allow the debtor to continue operating the business and generate income to repay creditors. The amounts that creditors receive in the rehabilitation proceeding are greater than the amounts creditors would receive if the debtor went bankrupt. The law is not designed to allow debtors or creditors to use the business rehabilitation process in bad faith for their benefit or to defraud another party. Accordingly, the Business Rehabilitation Law, which is included in the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), provides criminal liability for actions taken before or during the process. This article addresses the key points regarding criminal liability for safeguarding debtors and creditors in business rehabilitation proceedings from any parties who act in bad faith. Criminal Liability in Business Rehabilitation The following provisions establish the framework for criminal liability in business rehabilitation cases, ensuring that all parties act with integrity throughout the process. The Bankruptcy Act of Thailand B.E. 2483 (1940) provides the relevant provisions regarding the business rehabilitation process. Additionally, if a company debtor or its authorized directors are found to have committed fraud or malfeasance under the Bankruptcy Act, they can also be held criminally liable under the Penal Code or related criminal statutes. The rehabilitation process aims to help a business recover financially under the supervision of the court. When the court approves the rehabilitation plan, the court appoints a business rehabilitation plan administrator to manage and implement the process. However, if it is discovered that the debtor, its executives, or even the plan administrator engaged in illegal activities prior to or during the rehabilitation process—such as tax evasion, embezzlement,
Read More
June 13, 2025
In today’s digital age, cyberattacks have become a real threat to organizations worldwide. These attacks can range from phishing and malware to ransomware and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. As the frequency and sophistication of these attacks increase, so does the importance of cybersecurity compliance. In the corporate world, compliance refers to the process of ensuring that a company and its employees adhere to all relevant laws, regulations, standards, and ethical practices—but it should not stop there. Compliance should also encompass asset recovery and disciplinary measures, which can both help organizations address incidents effectively and promote good governance. Cyberattacks are malicious attempts to access or damage a computer system or network, often carried out for financial gain, for political activism, or simply to cause disruption. For instance, a successful attack might involve an attacker creating an email address that closely resembles a legitimate one, perhaps by changing only one or two characters. That email address is then inserted into an existing conversation thread, making it appear as if the user with this email address was already part of the discussion. This tactic can easily deceive a recipient into believing the email was sent from a trusted source, thereby leading them to click on malicious links, provide sensitive information, or even make payments in accordance with the attacker’s request or instructions. Phishing attacks like these are particularly dangerous and can have a serious impact on the ongoing business of a corporation because they exploit the trust and familiarity established in the original email chain. Effective Mitigation Approaches Mechanisms for addressing the aftermath of a crisis provide important recourse to affected organizations, but effective compliance mechanisms can minimize the risk of such crises ever occurring. Companies should therefore prioritize preventative measures and implementation of effective crisis management schemes. Various legal
Read More