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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section