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

May 30, 2024

Bank Guarantee Disputes in Thai Construction and Procurement Agreements

A bank guarantee or bond is a powerful tool that provides contractual parties with security and assurance. Bank guarantees are commitments made by a bank (as a guarantor) on behalf of a customer (as an obligor) to a beneficiary to ensure that certain contractual obligations will be fulfilled. If the customer fails to comply with these obligations, the bank can compensate the beneficiary up to the amount specified in the bank guarantee.

Bank guarantees are widely used in Thailand as a form of security and are common in construction agreements and government procurement contracts, among others. If the beneficiary (e.g., a project owner) concludes that the counterparty in the agreement (e.g., a contractor) has breached the underlying contract in some way, the beneficiary will demand payment from the bank pursuant to the guarantee.

Collecting on a Guarantee and Preventing Payment

In the context of construction and procurement agreements, there are two types of bank guarantees—conditional and unconditional. A conditional bank guarantee means that the project owner must satisfy certain agreed-upon conditions (e.g., provision of proof of the breach, proof of damages, or even consent from the contractor) to demand payment. An unconditional bank guarantee means that the bank must compensate the project owner for the demanded amount (up to the limit specified in the bank guarantee) without any conditions.

When a project owner concludes that a contractor has breached the underlying contract (often for nonperformance or failure to comply with a representation or warranty), the project owner will demand payment from the bank holding the guarantee. Upon receiving such a demand, Thai banks will usually inform the contractor and ask if it has any objections.

Even if the bank guarantee is unconditional, in practice, a bank may be reluctant to make payment if the contractor, as the bank’s customer, strongly objects. This means that if the contractor disagrees with any insinuation by the project owner that a breach has occurred, and there is a risk that the project owner will demand payment under a bank guarantee, the contractor should clearly voice its objection.

To make an effective objection, the contractor should be aware of the various conditions that are attached to the guarantee. Common conditions in Thailand include requirements that the project owner make a demand through a specific channel or method, or within a specific time-period (e.g., 15 days from the date that the project owner became aware of the breach entitling the project owner to make a demand). The Thai Supreme Court has ruled that this is an essential condition to make a demand, and failing to do so would cost the project owner the entire payment under the bank guarantee.

Furthermore, the breach or other event entitling the project owner to make a demand must occur before the expiry date specified on the bank guarantee. In other words, the bank guarantee must be valid when the breach event occurs. If the guarantee is no longer valid at the date of the breach, the bank should deny any payment request. As such, parties should know the expiry date of the guarantee and plan accordingly.

Lastly, the contractor may carefully and selectively provide an argument, together with necessary and sufficient supporting documents, to claim that the project owner’s payment demand has no merit. A common example is to show that the contractor is actually not in breach and that any payment demand by the project owner is misguided and premature. An effective argument by the contractor can help persuade the bank to hold off on making any payment under the guarantee.

If a contractor’s objection to a bank regarding payment is not effective, then the contractor will usually have to resort to court action. An injunction can potentially stop the project owner from demanding payment from the bank or prevent the bank from making payment to the project owner. A court order is required, and in certain limited circumstances, an injunction may be granted on an emergency basis. This is applicable to both litigation and arbitration proceedings. However, Thai courts are generally reluctant to grant emergency injunctions, and the evidentiary standards are high.

Conclusion

Bank guarantees are often an integral part of Thai legal transactions, such as construction and procurement agreements. When disputes arise, and ideally before they do, the contractor and project owner should be fully aware of any conditions attached to guarantees. Swift action is usually required when a party wants to call a bond. It is generally in the best interest of both contractors and project owners to know their respective legal positions and have a ready-made plan to handle any dispute that may arise involving a bank guarantee.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 29, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins recently assisted Bitmain, a leading manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware, in successful cancellation action lawsuits against BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks that were unlawfully registered by a local party in Indonesia. Background Founded in 2013, Bitmain is a leading manufacturer of digital currency mining servers, marketed under their BITMAIN and ANTMINER brands. The company has maintained a strong global market share, with customers in over 100 countries and regions. In Indonesia, Bitmain has held the BITMAIN trademark registration in classes 35, 36, 41, and 42 since 2018. However, the company was unable to register the trademark in other classes because a local party had already registered the mark in the desired classes. Bitmain also discovered that their ANTMINER brand had been registered by the same local party, which impeded Bitmain’s application to register the ANTMINER trademark in Indonesia. Bitmain had been using these trademarks and products worldwide long before the local party’s registration in Indonesia, and had also secured trademark registrations in various countries. However, the local party exploited Indonesia’s first-to-file principle, securing the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks before Bitmain could file. This was a classic example of trademark squatting, where a party registers a foreign trademark in a jurisdiction where the original owner has not yet filed, with the intent to profit from the brand’s success. Initial Approach Upon discovering that the local party had made these trademark applications, Bitmain found that one of these applications was still in the publication period. We advised and assisted Bitmain to file opposition against the application, but this opposition was subsequently refused because the local party had already obtained identical BITMAIN trademarks in other classes. Consequently, the application was registered in the Trademark Office database. Following the unfavorable opposition decision, we initially worked with Bitmain to seek a mutually
April 28, 2025
In recent years, Vietnam has positioned itself among the leading countries in the world in terms of digital asset ownership and trading volume. This rapid adoption reflects the country’s growing digital economy and the increasing engagement of individuals and businesses in blockchain-based financial activities. Central to this growth are Resolution No. 57-NQ/TW of the Politburo dated December 22, 2024, on breakthroughs in science, technology, innovation, and national digital transformation with a vision to 2045 (“Resolution 57”) and Resolution No. 03/NQ-CP of the Government dated January 9, 2025, promulgating the Action Plan to Implement Resolution 57 (“Resolution 03”), which outline a flexible and innovative policy framework that embraces pilot programs for emerging technologies to lay the groundwork for Vietnam’s legislative framework concerning cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies. Regulatory clarity in terms of digital assets and blockchain technologies is now more critical than ever for businesses and investors. In light of this, Vietnam is currently in the process of introducing three key legal instruments, with drafts of the Law on Digital Technology Industry (“Draft DTI Law”), Resolution of the National Assembly on the Establishment of Regional and International Financial Centers in Vietnam (“Draft Financial Center Resolution”), and Resolution of the Government on the Pilot Implementation of Crypto Asset Markets in Vietnam (“Draft Crypto Pilot Resolution”) nearing promulgation. Current Regulatory Direction and Schedule Vietnam’s regulatory framework for crypto assets and blockchain has been in a developmental stage since 2017, focusing on directions, plans, and schedules rather than established regulations. In February 2024, under Decision No. 194/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) was assigned to draft a legal framework to either prohibit or regulate virtual assets and service providers by May 2025, signaling a clearer regulatory direction. In March 2025, Directive No. 05/CT-TTg of the Prime Minister directed the MOF
April 25, 2025
Vietnam is on the cusp of a major judicial reform with significant implications for intellectual property (IP) litigators. A draft law, expected to be passed in mid-2025, will restructure the court system into a three-tiered judicial hierarchy while retaining the current two-tiered trial structure. The reforms include the anticipated establishment of a specialized IP court and a reallocation of jurisdiction that may fundamentally change how and where IP disputes are resolved. From 63 to 34: Fewer Provinces, Fewer Courts – But Wider Reach Under the new model, the judiciary will be organized into three levels: (i) the Supreme People’s Court, with three newly established appellate courts in Hanoi, Da Nang, and Ho Chi Minh City, (ii) the 34 provincial-level People’s Courts (following a reduction from 63 provinces to 34 due to administrative consolidation), and (iii) a newly created tier of regional-level courts (tòa án khu vực) that will replace the existing district-level courts. Each regional court will encompass several district-level courts within a province. The number of regional courts in each province will be determined based on the number of districts following a planned reduction. While the number of provincial-level courts will decrease, the newly established regional-level courts will be granted expanded jurisdiction. Notably, these courts will have first-instance jurisdiction over a broad range of civil, commercial, and administrative matters. In criminal cases, they will handle offenses punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment, while more serious crimes will remain under the jurisdiction of provincial-level courts. For IP litigators, this likely means that first-instance cases, especially civil infringement disputes, will shift from the provincial level to the lower regional level. These regional courts will become the new battleground for IP enforcement. Same Two-Tier Adjudication, Different Game Board While the judicial structure is evolving, the core adjudicative framework remains unchanged:
March 28, 2025
On October 25, 2024, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) issued Circular No. 49/2024/TT-NHNN (“Circular 49”) amending and supplementing certain provisions of Circular No. 11/2022/TT-NHNN dated September 30, 2022, on bank guarantees (“Circular 11”). However, shortly thereafter, the SBV replaced both Circular 11 and Circular 49 with Circular No. 61/2024/TT-NHNN (“Circular 61”) dated December 31, 2024, which incorporates most of the updates from Circular 49 while introducing further amendments to bank guarantee regulations to align with the 2024 Law on Credit Institutions and 2023 Law on Real Estate Business. Circular 61 has an effective date of April 1, 2025. Below, we highlight some new regulations on bank guarantees under Circular 61, including those that were adopted from Circular 49. Updated Definitions Circular 61 broadens the definition of “customer” in bank guarantee relationships, introducing the possibility of a fourth party. Traditionally, a customer would request a credit institution to guarantee its obligations. Under the revised framework, a customer may also request the credit institution to issue a guarantee for another party, such as a parent company requesting a guarantee for its subsidiary. This change establishes a broader scope of parties involved in a bank guarantee relationship, which now includes the customer, the guarantor, the guaranteed party, and the beneficiary. Circular 61 also updates the definitions of “bank guarantee”, “cross-guarantee”, and “guaranteed party” to align with the term “bank guarantee” as defined in the 2024 Law on Credit Institutions. This includes requirements on mandatory debt acknowledgement. Bank Guarantees for Sale of Off-Plan Housing Circular 61, in alignment with Circular 49, the Law on Credit Institutions, and the Law on Real Estate Business, allows foreign bank branches and commercial banks (the “Guarantor”) to guarantee off-plan housing with a detailed procedure. The guarantee agreement between the Guarantor and the real estate project investor