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 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
November 13, 2025
The Land Department in Thailand’s Ministry of the Interior (MOI) plays a central role in ensuring the stability and legality of real estate transactions in the country. Its core responsibilities include issuing land title deeds, registering transactions (e.g., sales, mortgages, leases), conducting surveys for subdivision or consolidation of land, and providing information and guidance on land and property development laws. These administrative functions secure investor confidence and support transparency in the Thai property market, so any delay can have a significant impact. This is especially true for investors who depend on timely registration to secure or transfer property rights. Delays can create liquidity risks, postpone project timelines, and even reduce Thailand’s attractiveness as a real estate investment destination. This article explores the nature of these challenges, the legal framework governing the timelines for administrative actions, and remedies available under Thai law. Sources of Delay Procedural delays at land offices can arise for a variety of structural and operational reasons. These include approval processes that require several levels of internal review, heavy staff workloads, and occasional communication gaps within the bureaucratic chain. Many processes still rely upon manual documentation, which can prolong administrative steps and increase the likelihood of bottlenecks. Some delays stem from ongoing investigations into the legality of land titles. For example, a land title deed may have an annotation indicating that the title deed is under investigation to verify its legality. Even though this annotation does not legally prohibit the sale or transfer of the land, in practice, most prospective purchasers are reluctant to proceed with a transaction until the annotation is removed. As a result, the land can become effectively illiquid during the investigation period, leading to significant investment delays. While such investigations are essential to maintaining the integrity of Thailand’s land registration system, prolonged inquiries
Read More
October 30, 2025
Thailand has introduced a comprehensive overhaul of its tax litigation procedures that will significantly impact how tax disputes are handled. The Regulations for Tax Cases B.E. 2568 (2025) take effect on November 24, 2025, and repeal the prior B.E. 2544 (2001) regulations in full. These regulations support the implementation of the Act on the Establishment of the Tax Court and Tax Case Procedure (No. 3) B.E. 2568 (2025), which expands the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to certain criminal tax matters. Published in the Government Gazette on October 14, 2025, the regulations have been reorganized into three parts covering civil cases, criminal cases, and forms, and are designed to accelerate proceedings, tighten evidentiary discipline, and modernize court operations. Structural Reform and Scope The prior regime governed only civil tax disputes. Under the new framework, the regulations introduce a dedicated chapter for criminal cases alongside updated civil procedures, as the Tax Court now has express authority to adjudicate specified criminal tax offenses. Select mechanisms applied in civil case proceedings, such as electronic communication, recording testimony, and appointing experts, also apply to criminal proceedings mutatis mutandis where they do not conflict with criminal procedure. Civil Cases: Evidence Submission, Deadlines, and Scheduling Parties must submit, together with the witness list, originals of all documentary evidence, media, or electronic data (such as files, USB drives, or CDs), and all physical evidence in the party’s possession. Failure to submit any original within the deadline (see below) results in a loss of the right to adduce that item at trial, subject only to narrow exceptions where submission is impossible due to force majeure or where receipt of the evidence is indispensable to the interests of justice. The practical impact is that parties are now obligated to assemble and verify all original documents and data at the very
Read More