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 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
December 3, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have contributed the Thailand chapter to Litigation 2026, published by Chambers and Partners. Litigation 2026 provides an overview of litigation procedures and practices across numerous jurisdictions. The guide is a key reference for businesses, in-house counsel, and legal professionals seeking to understand and compare litigation frameworks around the world. The Thailand chapter delivers analysis of 14 core areas of litigation, including: General characteristics of the legal system and court structure Litigation funding options and requirements Procedures for initiating lawsuits and pre-trial steps Discovery processes and injunctive relief Trial procedures and rules on evidence Settlement mechanisms and enforcement Damages and judgment considerations Appeal processes and cost issues Alternative dispute resolution and arbitration Developments and future outlook for dispute resolution in Thailand Each section offers practical guidance on navigating Thailand’s litigation landscape, providing useful context for international businesses and legal practitioners involved in dispute resolution matters. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides deliver expert commentary on key practice areas across jurisdictions, allowing readers to compare legislation, procedures, and practical considerations relevant to business operations. The Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, and the full Litigation 2026 guide is available free of charge on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
December 3, 2025
Thailand’s Civil Court has issued a regulation targeting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of pleadings and other documents submitted to the court. Effective November 17, 2025, the regulation aligns with September 2025 guidance from the president of the Supreme Court, and aims to safeguard accuracy, transparency, and public confidence in civil adjudication. The regulation applies to all parties submitting pleadings or any documents to the Civil Court that are prepared using AI tools or contain AI-generated content. It subjects AI used for these purposes to strict requirements on verification, disclosure, and accountability. Core Obligations The regulation imposes four principal obligations: Lawyers who use AI remain subject to duties of honesty, responsibility to the court, professional standards, and legal ethics, including the duty to assess the appropriateness of the AI tool for the work. Parties and lawyers must verify the accuracy and completeness of all facts, legal provisions, and citations in AI-generated content before submission. Parties and lawyers must disclose to the court any AI-generated content by clearly marking the beginning and end of the AI-generated portion with prescribed statements (see below). Additionally, a certification confirming the use of AI must be provided at the end of the pleading or document, stating that AI was used for certain portions and that the party has reviewed and certifies the accuracy of factual and legal content. Parties and lawyers bear the same full legal and ethical responsibility for AI-generated content as they do for personally authored documents; they cannot evade responsibility or avoid liability by citing AI-related errors. Likewise, parties must ensure that any AI-generated content is truthful, accurate, and unbiased. Prescribed Disclosure Language Each instance of AI-generated content must be preceded by the statement “[The following content was prepared using artificial intelligence]” and must end with “[End
Read More
November 19, 2025
Litigation has its place in resolving business disputes, but it is often time-consuming and costly. In Thailand, a straightforward civil case can take a year or more to reach judgment at first instance, and appeals can extend that timeline further. Court filing fees are tied to the value of the claim, typically amounting to around two percent for claims up to THB 50 million, before accounting for attorney fees, translation costs, expert work, and the internal time that management must devote to the case. Against this backdrop, Thai law provides an alternative pathway for parties to attempt resolution before filing suit, and Thai courts commonly encourage mediation as part of the dispute-resolution process. Specifically, prelitigation mediation is a court-supervised process designed to facilitate confidential settlement discussions at an early stage. Participation is voluntary and requires the consent of both parties. The process does not replace litigation but is available in parallel as an initial step for interested parties. If the parties reach an agreement, the settlement can be recorded as a consent judgment that is directly enforceable in Thailand. If no settlement is reached, the parties retain their full right to proceed with a court claim. Reasons to Consider Prelitigation Mediation Prelitigation mediation can offer several advantages. It may shorten timelines from months or years to just weeks, reduce legal costs, and keep discussions confidential. It also allows parties to pursue practical, business-driven solutions or tailored remedies that address their specific needs—outcomes that may not be available through traditional litigation. To facilitate this process, under Thailand’s Civil Procedure Code, parties may petition the court to initiate prelitigation mediation before filing a suit. If the opposing party agrees, the court appoints a mediator to work with the parties under established mediation rules. In such a scenario, there are no court
Read More