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 29, 2022
Disputes are unavoidable in the business world—not only civil disputes between business partners but also criminal matters, in which a company or its representatives, or even an individual, are accused of legal or regulatory violations or other crimes. While this can be a daunting situation—especially for those facing a criminal matter in a jurisdiction with unfamiliar laws or litigation processes—knowing what to expect out of criminal proceedings can bring clarity and make the situation feel much more manageable. Thailand, for instance, is a vibrant economy in the heart of Southeast Asia that has attracted many businesses to pursue opportunities in the country. However, the relatively well-developed and sometimes unfamiliar regulatory regime in Thailand means that companies can unintentionally fall afoul of the legal requirements and find themselves having to defend against criminal litigation. In such a situation, understanding  how criminal proceedings work in Thailand  is critical step to  prepare for the case. Thailand’s legislative system is  based on a civil law system. Notably, however, Thai courts are still influenced by previous Supreme Court decisions as precedent references for adjudicating cases. Most criminal offenses are contained in the Penal Code (also called the Criminal Code). There are also other offenses prescribed in the country’s acts (of which there are approximately 1,000), which specify the obligations and prohibitions people must observe. Although most offenses are misdemeanors, many are nonetheless punishable by imprisonment—a dire prospect for anyone, and even more so for an accused party whose home country is not Thailand. By its nature as a juristic person, a company charged with a criminal offense is subject only to fines. However, company directors or other representatives are often accused as codefendants along with the juristic person itself. These individuals can be found guilty for the offense conducted by the juristic person if
Read More
August 23, 2022
Indemnification clauses are common contractual provisions in many jurisdictions including Thailand, but enforcing them can be challenging in the eyes of Thai law. In general, to “indemnify” means to hold another party free of responsibility for a potential risk or loss. When one party (i.e., the “indemnitor”) indemnifies another party (i.e., the “indemnitee”), the indemnitor is obligated to pay or compensate the indemnitee for any liabilities or losses (within the scope agreed in the contract). In this way, an indemnification clause can be a useful provision to shift responsibility for potential risks from one party to another. In some jurisdictions, “indemnity” includes the recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred by the indemnitee. It may even carry with it the duty to defend or fund the defense of any claim brought against the indemnitee. If that is the case, even though the contract does not say so, the indemnitor would have to hire an attorney and pay the legal fees for the indemnitee. In contracts that contain an indemnification clause, the indemnity would typically include the duty to defend. Let’s use a case example to elaborate this point. In this hypothetical case, a supplier of machinery agrees to indemnify and defend a retailer against claims from the retailer’s customer in the event that a purchased machine becomes defective. As a result, besides being responsible for the damages that the retailer may suffer based on contract law or negligence, the supplier must also pay for the lawyers to defend the retailer if the customer decides to sue. In Thailand, this kind of indemnification clause may not be enforceable. Unlike contract rules in many jurisdictions, Thai contract law is silent on “contractual indemnity.” It is commonly understood in Thailand (and confirmed by Supreme Court decision 7943/2542) that “indemnity” means “compensation” under section 222
Read More
February 25, 2022
As internet availability and speeds have taken off in Thailand, more and more consumers in the country have adjusted their behavior by purchasing products through websites and online applications. However, they sometimes find that not all transactions turn out as expected. As online sales have increased, the number of disputes over these transactions has also continued to grow. Local news outlets are now reporting on the latest official response to this trend: a new division of the Civil Court designed to cope with the growing number of disputes from online transactions. The Honorable Chief Justice Piyakul Boonperm, president of Thailand’s Supreme Court, is aiming to expand internet shoppers’ access to justice by setting up a special division to work on cases involving online transactions. The announcement of the formation of this division was published in the Government Gazette on December 20, 2021, and the Civil Court announced shortly after that it would start operating on January 27, 2022. The announcement does not affect cases filed prior to January 27, 2022, and does not revoke plaintiffs’ rights to file cases through alternative legal means. The special division handles only disputes between buyers and sellers in an online transaction over a legal right or obligation related to consumption of goods or services in accordance with section 3(1) of the Consumer Procedural Act B.E. 2551 (2008) on what the law called “consumer cases.” This also includes bodies that can act on a consumer’s behalf by law, such as a consumer protection commission, association, or foundation approved by the Consumer Protection Commission. Only cases that can be handled remotely through the court’s electronic system fall within the scope of this announcement—cases that cannot be completely handled online will not be taken up by the new special division. Accordingly, parties must utilize the court’s
Read More
January 27, 2022
Thailand and Vietnam are major destinations for foreign direct investment (FDI) in Asia, resulting in significant levels of cross-border transactions. According to the World Bank, in 2018 and 2019 Thailand attracted a combined net inflow of about USD 18 billion in FDI.  During the same period, net inflows to Vietnam were USD 31.62 billion. These high volumes of inbound investment inevitably lead to a higher risk of disputes with everyone from suppliers, contractors, joint venture partners, borrowers, and of course state-owned companies and government agencies. International arbitration is a viable means of handling such disputes. Both Thailand and Vietnam are contracting states to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), so arbitral awards from other member states are enforceable. With this in mind, an international arbitration award has to be enforced. This usually means filing cases in the local Thai and Vietnamese courts. As explained in this report, both Thailand and Vietnam have legislative frameworks in place to enforce arbitral awards, but in practice, enforcement can be a challenging and time-consuming endeavor. Before electing to pursue arbitration against private and state entities, foreign investors should be aware of how awards are actually enforced in these emerging Asian jurisdictions. To read the full article, please download the report through the button below.   This article was first published in September 2021 by the Practising Law Institute as part of their course materials for International Investment Law & Investor-State Dispute Settlement 2021.
Read More