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 28, 2020
The practice of business operators taking advantage of Lao consumers has always concerned Lao authorities, especially because the application of the country’s consumer protection regulatory framework has been restricted and unfamiliar to the country’s civil society. For example, the main piece of legislation, the Law on Consumer Protection no. 02/NA, dated June 30, 2010, enunciates a series of broad principles that are too general to be implemented effectively. Moreover, Laos has no independent entity to assist the country’s consumers in making informed decisions, namely by advising them on local operators’ malpractices and defective products that may endanger their health. Under Lao law, the powers delegated to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce (MOIC) and the Internal Trade Department are limited to administering consumer protection measures, such as controlling the price of products below the government’s price ceiling (e.g., for daily commodities, such as pork and traditional soups) and ensuring that products and services observe the country’s minimum safety standards. In practice, selected ministries have also overseen such measures for products under their respective areas of expertise; for example, the Ministry of Health monitors complaints related to medicinal products and pharmaceuticals. For this reason, the Lao authorities have been leading consultations to fill the legal vacuum and better promote consumer protection measures in the country. From these consultations to revamp and enhance the consumer protection legal framework, in mid-2020 the authorities issued recommendations that provide a legal framework for the establishment of consumer protection associations. This guidance was outlined in the Recommendations Concerning the Establishment and Operation of Consumer Protection Associations no. 0707/MOIC, dated July 30, 2020, which were published in the official gazette of the Ministry of Justice on August 3, 2020. Authority of Consumer Protection Associations The recommendations were issued to elaborate on the scope of consumer protection
Read More
December 22, 2020
John McCarthy, an American computer scientist and inventor, coined the term “artificial intelligence” (AI) in 1956, and is often called the father of artificial intelligence. Now, nearly a half century later, legal professionals recognize that AI is not just a buzzword for novel computer software but, with the ability of computers to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, it holds great potential for technology growth. The term AI followed from research that studied and developed concepts around “thinking machines.” Today, AI is generally accepted as a branch of computer science. It concerns the ability of computers to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence. Subsets of AI include machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, computer vision, and neural networking. Existing Use of AI in Legal Research So far, the legal profession’s utilization of AI pales in comparison to other sectors, according to a 2019 management consultancy study by Bain & Company. It found that only about 20 to 25 percent of legal departments embrace AI in at least one area of their work, while 40 percent of finance departments and 54 percent of human resources departments do so. A survey in 2017 (on research not associated with AI) by the American Bar Association found that attorneys spend, on average, 16.3 percent of their working hours conducting legal research. Despite the transition of legal research within the last century from using traditional hardcopy materials to computerized databases, to the adoption of online research within the past few decades, little has changed in the time investment, the survey said. With clients pressuring lawyers to reduce costs, leveraging AI to conduct legal research can save time and money. A 2018 article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology  exemplified this point in referencing a bankruptcy lawyer who spent 10 hours searching for a
Read More
December 21, 2020
A decade ago, intellectual property lawsuits were rarely handled by Vietnamese courts. They have become more common in recent years, but almost always with overseas IP owners in the plaintiff role, charging local Vietnamese entities with infringement, piracy, or counterfeiting. However, in the course of its rapid economic and technical development, Vietnam has emerged as a legitimate brand creator and content generator, and it appears that the tables may have turned. A good example of this shift is a high-profile copyright infringement lawsuit filed in mid-September at the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City by TV production company Vie Channel against the online streaming music giant Spotify. Vie Channel specializes in the design and development of game shows such as “Rap Viet” and “Who Is Single Vietnam,” popular programs on Vietnamese TV. The company has charged Spotify with extracting audio files from these shows—19 recordings from each—to broadcast on Spotify’s free and paid platforms without Vie Channel’s permission. Vie Channel sent several letters of notification to Spotify’s headquarters in Sweden before initiating the proceedings, and also clearly confirmed that there is no business relationship between Vie Channel and Spotify; therefore, these acts are deemed to infringe the protected moral rights and economic rights attached to the two programs. In its lawsuit, Vie Channel is requesting that Spotify terminate all acts of infringement and make a public apology, and is also seeking compensation for damages provisionally calculated at nearly VND 10 billion (USD 433,000), a massive amount in the context of Vietnam. The case presents many interesting legal issues to be settled by the court, such as the determination of the Vietnamese courts’ jurisdiction in lawsuits with foreign elements. Particularly, although the defendant in this case is “present” in Vietnam through its online music platforms, it has never been
Read More
December 7, 2020
COVID-19 has had an economic impact across a wide range of industries, including hospitality, airlines, automotive, construction, logistics, and more, and many performance obligations on contractual parties have been rendered impossible. However, many others—while certainly more difficult, complicated, or expensive—remain literally or legally possible. While COVID-19 will continue to have a devastating impact on health and economies globally, governments—including Thailand’s—have implemented preventive and responsive measures in an attempt to mitigate that impact. On May 24, 2020, for example, the Committee for Government Procurement and Supplies Management circulated guidelines for the administration of contracts between private parties during the COVID-19 pandemic, announcing that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a force majeure event. The specific period of force majeure in Thailand began with the government’s announcement of a state of emergency on March 26, 2020. See the previous article for more details on this measure. As market circumstances continue to evolve along with the impact of COVID-19, companies in Thailand are paying special attention to the role force majeure plays in navigating the various legal implications of commercial contracts during the outbreak. Force Majeure Clauses under Thai Law    In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic many are wondering whether parties will be excused from performance under the doctrine of force majeure, by which parties can be excused from contractual performance that becomes impossible due to an extraordinary or exogenous event. For contracts that have no force majeure clause, the definition of force majeure under section 8 of the Civil and Commercial Code will automatically be applied. However, parties may negotiate a force majeure clause and establish a course of action to follow in such events of force majeure. This clause can also pertain to things like excuse of liability, right to terminate or revise the contract, and distribution of damages due to force majeure. Every force majeure clause should be considered
Read More