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

June 22, 2026

Arbitrator Independence Declarations in Thailand: A Procedural Gap

Subscribe to Updates
The Legal Industry Reviews

Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape.

Background

Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency.

However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums.

Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency

This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed directly to the first procedural hearing without the arbitrator having made any formal declaration. This can deprive a party of the opportunity to assess potential conflicts at the earliest stage, potentially giving rise to grounds for setting aside an award under section 40 of the Arbitration Act.

Thai courts have taken an increasingly serious view of disclosure failures. In Supreme Court Decision No. 3542/2561, the court set aside an arbitral award because the presiding arbitrator failed to disclose his involvement as defense counsel in a prior, related insurance matter, despite neither party in the earlier case being a party to the arbitration in question. The court held that this nondisclosure gave rise to justifiable doubts under section 19 and rendered the enforcement of the award contrary to public policy. This decision underscores that Thai courts expect rigorous compliance with the disclosure obligation.

Given these risks, arbitration institutions in Thailand should take proactive compliance steps. Arbitrators should understand that requests for independence declarations are not a challenge to their integrity but are designed to protect the legitimacy of proceedings, the enforceability of awards, and the integrity of the arbitral forum itself. If no formalized process exists, parties should request that written confirmations of independence and impartiality be placed on record before substantive proceedings commence.

 

This article was first published in the May 2026 Thailand edition of The Legal Industry Reviews, an international platform that publishes news and applied law updates from industry-leading law firms worldwide. To browse the latest complete issue, please visit The Legal Industry Reviews website.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 19, 2022
On November 22, 2022, the Thai cabinet approved in principle the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act (the “Bill”) proposed by the Office of the Consumer Protection Board. While Thailand’s Product Liability Act B.E. 2551 (2008) deals with liability to consumers arising from unsafe products, the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act aims to ensure that consumers are well protected from defects in appliances and vehicles that might not initially be easily visible or noticed. Key Definitions The Bill applies most notably to business operators and consumers. In the Bill, a “business operator” who may potentially be liable is: a manufacturer (or its hirer) of goods for sale; or a consignee or importer who brings goods into Thailand for sale; or a seller or a hire purchase provider who cannot identify the manufacturer (or its hirer) or the importer. As opposed to the Product Liability Act, which clearly provides that all business operators in the supply chain must be jointly liable, the Bill lacks such clear guidance. This could be interpreted as meaning that under the current Bill only the business operator at the top of the supply chain who is sued in the same case as other business operators is responsible. A “consumer” is defined as a purchaser or hirer of goods from a manufacturer, including an assignee or successor of the goods from the purchaser or hirer. Scope and Application The Bill is intended to govern purchase or hire-purchase contracts for: electric appliances; electronic devices; personal cars and motorcycles; other goods that may be set out in a future royal decree issued under the act. The Bill will not apply to any purchase or hire purchase of used products or as-is products when this is clearly stated by the seller or hire-purchase provider or the auctioneer in
Read More
November 24, 2022
On November 24, 2022, Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Marcin Czepelak and leaders of Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs chaired the opening ceremony of the PCA’s Representative Office in Hanoi. Beyond its headquarters in The Hague, the PCA has opened offices in other cities to make its services more accessible in different regions. The Hanoi office will be the PCA’s fourth office outside its headquarters. The PCA, established in 1899, is an intergovernmental organization which provides resolution services for disputes involving states, state entities, international organizations, as well as private entities. It provides and administers arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and fact-finding commissions of inquiry. The PCA’s services are primarily used in Europe and Asia. In cases administered in 2021, approximately 47% of the disputing parties were from the Western European and Others Group of the United Nations Regional Groups, and 40% from the Asia Pacific Group. The majority of disputes resolved by PCA are state-related disputes; however, the PCA’s scope of settlement is also extended to the private sector. The PCA’s Hanoi office is staffed to administer PCA hearings and meetings and will provide administrative services in support of parties and arbitrators conducting arbitral proceedings under the PCA’s auspices, serving as the official channel of communications and ensuring safe custody of documents. The PCA can also provide such services as financial administration, logistical and technical support for meetings and hearings, travel arrangements, and general secretarial and linguistic support. Currently, Vietnam has some active members of the PCA. The opening of the PCA representative office is a step toward realizing commitments between Vietnam and the PCA in their protocol signed in 2021, and serving the evolving dispute resolution needs of states and other entities in the coming years. With the new office in Hanoi, it is expected that
Read More
October 27, 2022
Under Thai bankruptcy law, a creditor can file a request for a debtor to be placed under an absolute receivership order and bankruptcy judgment. However, the debtor must be insolvent, and the debt owed to the creditor or creditors must be at least THB 1 million (for a debtor who is a natural person) or THB 2 million (for the debtor who is a juristic person). In order to know whether the latter requirement is met, the debt must be “determinable”—that is, known and monetarily quantifiable. More specifically, determinable debt is debt (up to the filing date) in an amount that can be calculated, whether the debt is payable immediately or in the future. The debt can be under a loan agreement or under a sale-and-purchase agreement. One question that sometimes comes up is whether damages arising out of termination of such an agreement are considered determinable debt. According to a number of Supreme Court precedents, if the debt (e.g., rent, fine or penalty) can be calculated as referred to in the agreement, the debt is determinable. Three of these cases are described below. Supreme Court Case No. 2653/2526 In this case, the defendant made a partial delivery of oil (i.e., not the amount fully expected) to the plaintiff, who claimed that the defendant owed them a fine of almost THB 14.9 million, calculated in accordance with the sale-and-purchase agreement for the oil. The defendant argued that the debt was not determinable because the plaintiff did not prove whether they suffered damage or not. The Supreme Court noted that the agreement for sale and purchase of oil stated clearly that if the defendant could not deliver oil to the plaintiff in full, the plaintiff had the right to terminate the agreement and fine the defendant 25 percent of the
Read More
October 19, 2022
The Factory Act B.E. 2535 (1992) is one of the most important laws regulating manufacturing businesses in Thailand. It applies to businesses either with machinery of 50 horsepower or more in total, or with a minimum of 50 workers in a facility that conducts “factory work” as defined under related ministerial regulations. The act was recently amended to extend the period of validity for factory licenses and to make other miscellaneous changes that facilitate business. However, the act’s criminal liabilities were left unchanged, and they remain a vital tool for the authorities to exert control over relevant standards and prosecute violations. Both fines and imprisonment are available as sanctions under the law. Examples of common violations of the Factory Act and their potential penalties include: Setting up and operating a factory without acquiring a license: up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to THB 200,000 (approx. USD 5,365), or both. Operating with noise level exceeding the standard set by the Ministry of Industry: a fine of up to THB 200,000. Not displaying a factory license in an open and easily visible location in the factory: a fine of up to THB 5,000 (approx. USD 134). Doing a test run of machinery prior to the start of the factory operations without notifying the authorities: a fine of up to THB 20,000. As factory activities are regulated in considerable detail, overlooking a minor change could potentially put the company at risk. The risk of violating the Factory Act increases when compliance is not a proactive policy—such as by instituting systems or safeguards to ensure adherence to the rules. Criminal Liability Violation of the Factory Act is especially a concern because criminal liability under the act is not limited to juristic persons (i.e., companies) but also applies to the director,
Read More