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

February 10, 2012

Compensation in a Wrongful Death Case

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Wrongful death claims can result in the assessment of civil and criminal penalties on parties that may be far removed from the negligent actor. The impact could be seen on officers and directors, manufacturers and dealers, employees and employers, agents and principals, insured and insurers, among others. This article is written for corporations and their officers and directors and includes an overview of wrongful death actions, significant components of awards, and protection mechanisms.

Wrongful Death Actions

A wrongful death action is brought by close relatives of the decedent for damages incurred as a result of the victim’s death. Liability is based on the concept of a “wrongful act” under Thai law, which is essentially an action in tort akin to a claim of negligence in common law jurisdictions. Establishing liability requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant acted willfully, negligently, or unlawfully, resulting in the death of the victim.

The court has the discretion to determine the manner and the extent of compensation according to the circumstances and the gravity of the wrongful act and may award compensation for the following:

  • Funeral and other necessary expenses
  • Expenses for medical treatment and loss of earnings (where there existed a period between the incident and the death)
  • Support that would have been provided by the decedent (where the claimant is legally entitled to support)
  • Damages where the decedent was bound by contract to perform services for an employer or contractor

Importantly, non-pecuniary damages (or damages that cannot be measured in money, such as damages for pain and suffering of the victim) are not recoverable by heirs, except where the wrongdoer agrees to pay compensation to the heirs for such damages.

Significant Components of Awards

The law gives the courts the discretion to assess damages on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the law does not give absolute freedom to the courts to determine damages, and the exercise of power is limited by the various provisions contained in the Civil and Commercial Code.

A significant component of damages is the maintenance that would have been provided by the decedent to persons entitled to support. In Thailand, children are bound to support their parents, and parents are generally bound to support their children until the age of adulthood (20 years). Husbands and wives shall maintain and support each other, according to their abilities and conditions in life.

Thus, the court may consider factors such as the decedent’s level of education, salary or potential salary, and age. The court may also review the plaintiff’s age, status, living expenses, occupation, and other sources of support. In a 2008 case decided by the Court of Appeals, the parents received 10 million baht in compensation for the death of their daughter, caused when she fell out of a bus due to a broken door. Among other factors, the court observed that the victim was about to pursue her master’s degree in Japan and, on completion, would have earned an average monthly salary of 46,000 baht for about 20 years.

In addition, courts in Thailand consider the ability of the defendant to pay the judgment. In a case decided in 2007 with similar facts to the above case, but where the defendant had fewer means, the parents of the decedent received less than 300,000 baht from the Supreme Court.

Another critical consideration is the amount requested by the plaintiff in the complaint. By law, courts cannot exceed the demand requested by the plaintiff. Note, however, that the court may allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint in order to seek greater sums from the defendant.

Protection

Given the disparity in awards for wrongful death claims and the likelihood that corporations and their officers and directors will be subject to awards on the high end of the spectrum, it is important to maintain good business practices. Active oversight and management, careful delegation of important responsibilities, and timely and appropriate responses to emergency situations will go far in avoiding or mitigating any damages incurred in wrongful death lawsuits. Directors and officers should also take care to only sit on a board of a company in which they are actively involved.

Management should also consider purchasing quality insurance. It is recommended that such insurance include coverage for legal fees, as it is often costly to defend wrongful death litigation. Finally, legal risks can be reduced by seeking the advice of competent counsel, in a proactive and timely manner, in order to adequately respond to an emergency situation or prevent the occurrence of such situations.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More