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 13, 2023
Thailand’s economy in recent years has felt the impact of a seemingly endless list of challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, global economic recession, repercussions from wars and armed conflicts, slumping exports, and recurring internal political turmoil. Many Thai companies simply went bankrupt during this time, but many others have gone through the process of business rehabilitation as laid out in Thailand’s Bankruptcy Act. This article outlines Thailand’s business rehabilitation procedures and explains how creditors can collect debts from companies involved in rehabilitation. Business rehabilitation in Thailand Under the Bankruptcy Act, a creditor, debtor, or government agency under certain circumstances can file a business rehabilitation petition when all of the following conditions are met: The debtor is insolvent or unable to pay the debt due for payment (cash-flow insolvency). The debtor is a juristic person indebted to one or more creditors for a total of at least 10 million baht. The debt can be determined in a definite amount, irrespective of whether it is due for payment immediately or in the future. There is a reasonable prospect of the debtor’s business being rehabilitated. “Insolvency” means a debtor has more debts than assets. However, the Bankruptcy Act also gives some criteria for being able to assume that a debtor is insolvent. Examples include debtors declaring to the court that they are unable to pay their debts, or debtors defaulting on debt payments after receiving at least two demand letters from a creditor (with at least 30 days between the letters). Once the court receives a business rehabilitation petition, the debtor will be protected under an “automatic stay.” This means that any creditor cannot sue or force the debtor to pay a debt, and the debtor is not allowed to pay any debt unless it falls into one of the exceptions
Read More
November 3, 2023
Vietnam’s new Law on Protection of Consumer Rights No. 19/2023/QH15 (CPL 2023) was promulgated by the National Assembly on June 20, 2023, and will replace the existing Law on Protection of Consumer Rights No. 59/2010/QH12 (CPL 2010) when it enters into effect on July 1, 2024. The main points of interest of the CPL 2023 are summarized below. 1. Definition of Consumer Under the CPL 2023, a consumer is defined to be “a person who purchases and/or uses products, goods and services with the aim of consumption for daily needs of individuals, families, or organizations, and not for commercial purposes” (Article 3.1). Compared to the CPL 2010, this definition introduces the phrase “and not for commercial purposes” to emphasize the exclusive focus on the consumption of goods and services. However, the CPL 2023 retains the use of the term “person” for defining a consumer, leading to uncertainty regarding whether an organization or a family can qualify as a consumer. Similarly, the CPL 2023, as in the CPL 2010, maintains an ambiguous comma between “purchase” and “use,” so it remains somewhat ambiguous whether purchase (without use) or use (without purchase) of goods/services is sufficient to qualify as a consumer under the law. 2. Vulnerable Consumers The CPL 2023 introduces a new concept known as the “vulnerable consumer.” This term pertains to a consumer who, at the time of purchase or use of products/services, is potentially subject to various adverse situations in terms of information access, health, property, or dispute settlement. This category encompasses individuals such as the elderly and disabled, children, ethnic minorities, people of remote or economically difficult regions, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers of infants under 36 months, individuals with severe illnesses, and members of poor households (Article 8.1). The rights and privileges of vulnerable consumers must be
Read More
October 30, 2023
A Resounding Victory The last days of October brought some excitement for one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, Novartis, when its patent litigation case in Vietnam against a local generic manufacturer, which had stretched over more than eight years, finally came to an end. The background of this case is quite simple. Novartis was the owner of a patent protecting the active ingredient vildagliptin, which was commercialized through its Galvus® product, a medicine used to treat type 2 diabetes. In 2015, the company found that a drug manufacturer in Vietnam’s Binh Duong province on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City was producing a medicinal product containing the vildagliptin active ingredient—an infringement of its patent. Novartis first submitted a request to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to apply administrative sanctions on this infringer. Subsequently, the MOST Inspectorate concluded in July 2015 that the defendant had committed patent infringement and ordered them to stop producing the infringing drugs and recall them from the market. However, the defendant did not comply with the conclusion, and sought an appeal while it continued to produce the infringing medicine. Realizing that administrative sanctions were not strict enough to deter the defendant, Novartis continued to protect its legitimate rights and interests by initiating a lawsuit at the provincial court where the defendant was headquartered, Binh Duong. Novartis claimed that the defendant had infringed the patent and requesting the defendant to compensate for damages at the highest level allowed by law, pay attorney fees, and publicly apologize to Novartis in specialized newspapers. This began a long journey full of challenges that finally ended with the second appellate judgment declared by the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City on October 17, 2023. The court accepted all claims raised by the
Read More
August 25, 2023
Michael Ramirez, a counsel in Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution department, has contributed an article to a series on contractual terms in Asia from the Asian Business Law Institute. Previous articles in the series have looked at administrative and tax requirements and contract breach and remedy under Thai law. The article gives an overview of how extracontractual liabilities are treated under Thai law. It addresses issues related to contract negotiations, no-reliance clauses, entire agreement clauses, and concurrent liability. ABLI, which is based in Singapore, conducts legal research and dissemination in order to provide knowledge, guidance, and recommendations surrounding development of legal systems in Asia. The full article on extracontractual liabilities is available as a PDF through the button below.
Read More