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​ 

August 23, 2023
Introduction The idea of the metaverse rose to prominence in the public discourse in 2021, most notably when Facebook renamed itself Meta and announced a new focus on launching a virtual, immersive world. The initial excitement around the metaverse has since faded, with worsening economic conditions having a particularly acute effect on companies in the technology sector. When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in March 2023 that artificial intelligence (AI) was the company’s “single largest investment,” many took this as a sign of the company shifting focus away from the metaverse. However, there remains significant interest in the metaverse from both businesses and consumers. Zuckerberg himself reaffirmed Meta’s focus on the metaverse, highlighting how developments in AI will improve virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technology. Meanwhile, Roblox, a metaverse gaming platform, announced that in Q1 2023, its number of daily active users had increased to 66 million. Most recently, the announcement by Apple of its new ‘Vision Pro’ AR headset is reported to have renewed interest in the metaverse among developers. A particular area of interest in the developing metaverse is digital fashion and retail. In its Metaverse Fashion Trends Report 2022, Roblox found that nearly three in four users aged 14 to 24 spend money on digital fashion items. Roblox itself has partnered with fashion brands Burberry, Gucci, Tommy Hilfiger, and others, to offer experiences and items for use on the platform. In March 2023, Decentraland, a metaverse platform with a decentralized governance structure, hosted the Metaverse Fashion Week, featuring brands such as Adidas, Coach, and DKNY. As businesses continue to invest and look for opportunities to expand into the metaverse, whether through traditional e-commerce or more innovative digital asset offerings, it is important that they consider the ways in which new and existing laws apply
Read More
August 3, 2023
Tilleke & Gibbins’ insurance specialists in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand have contributed to the Law and Jurisdiction in Insurance and Reinsurance Contracts – Asia Pacific guide produced by RPC. The guide addresses how governing law, jurisdiction, and arbitration clauses are used in insurance and reinsurance contracts. For each jurisdiction in the Asia Pacific region, the guide addresses the following topics: Governing law; Arbitration; Mediation; and Limitations and time bars on claims. The Law and Jurisdiction in Insurance and Reinsurance Contracts – Asia Pacific guide is available below.
Read More
July 11, 2023
Can computer programs resolve legal disputes? For decades, the answer from much of the legal community has been no. However, developments in artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular natural language processing and machine learning, have led to renewed discussions of this possibility. Increasingly, tools are being developed to assist parties with litigation outcome prediction and judges with litigation outcome determination. However, while some argue that the use of AI in legal disputes can reduce the length of proceedings, cut costs, and improve access to justice, others raise concerns that “black box” AI systems could reduce transparency, entrench bias, and harm the development of the law. Litigation Outcome Prediction The use of computers to predict the outcome of legal cases is not new. As early as the 1980s, researchers developed outcome prediction tools, often in the form of decision-tree algorithms. However, developments in AI have allowed the creation of more sophisticated prediction models. In 2017, a model built by Katz et al. predicted US Supreme Court decisions with an accuracy of 70.2%, while in 2019, a model built by Medvedeva et al. predicted decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with an accuracy of 75%. In various studies, AI tools have been able to predict case outcomes more accurately than expert lawyers. Companies such as Solomonic and Lex Machina, owned by LexisNexis, now provide commercial litigation prediction and analytics tools. Outcome prediction tools can be used by parties and their legal representatives to craft arguments and facilitate settlement negotiations, or by third-party litigation financers to assess the risk of providing funding. More broadly, outcome prediction may be used by the likes of insurance companies to help calculate claim payouts. However, those using such tools must take care to ensure that they do not breach any professional or legal obligations.
Read More
June 23, 2023
April and May witnessed intriguing developments within Vietnam’s intellectual property community. On the legislation side, of particular note was the issuance of Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP on April 26, coinciding with World IP Day. Decree 17 provides guidance on implementation of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law with regard to copyright and related rights, and has garnered significant attention due to several issues, especially the liability of intermediary (internet) service providers and copyright violation in the digital environment. Additionally, two noteworthy IP cases have emerged, albeit with limited public disclosure and awareness of specific details. Nonetheless, these cases are expected to have far-reaching implications. Copyright: Criminal Case Against Unauthorized Broadcasting of Football Matches For a considerable period of time, Vietnamese football enthusiasts have enjoyed being able to watch matches on TV and online from numerous top global football leagues. While many of these broadcasts were legitimate, with the rights purchased by Vietnamese and regional broadcasters, the unauthorized transmission and broadcasting of football matches on the internet has become increasingly prevalent. Authorities have seemingly faced challenges in curbing this issue through criminal action. In a positive development, in early May the Hanoi police decided to open a criminal proceeding against the unauthorized transmission and broadcasting of high-profile overseas football matches after a rigorous two-year investigation. Prior to this decision, authorities encountered difficulties in accurately determining the relevant laws and the nature of the violation to meet the requirements for prosecution. Specifically, they grappled with the question of whether a football match, or more specifically, a recorded video of a football match, could be considered a copyrighted work. If copyright protection extended to football matches and/or recorded videos, then transmitting and broadcasting these matches directly through the internet could be deemed illegal acts of copying or distributing (copyrighted) works, as outlined in Article
Read More