Suebsiri Taweepon, a partner in Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property group in Bangkok, was elected president of the Intellectual Property Association of Thailand (IPAT) when the association’s board members convened an online voting session to select new leadership. Suebsiri was the unanimous choice of the 15 board members of IPAT. As president, Suebsiri will guide IPAT in setting its program of seminars and events related to current developments in intellectual property in the country. He will also represent the association and provide oversight in relation to IPAT’s participation in regional and international initiatives. Established in 1972, IPAT is a leading intellectual property association in Thailand, and Tilleke & Gibbins has played an active role in the ongoing development of the group for many years. Darani Vachanavuttivong, managing partner of Tilleke & Gibbins and managing director of the firm’s intellectual property practice, served on IPAT’s board from 2001 to 2019 and was president of the association from 2005 to 2009.
On September 22, employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok held a seminar to address current issues relating to employment regulations in Thailand for companies at Gemopolis Industrial Estate in eastern Bangkok. The presentations were on two main topics—employment conditions and termination of employment. Chusert Supasitthumrong, partner and director of the firm’s dispute resolution department, led the first presentation. In the session, Chusert gave an overview of employment conditions and agreements, discussed strikes and lockouts, noted some illustrative case studies, and provided practical advice on how companies can alter their employees’ contracts in compliance with Thai law. The second installment of the seminar was delivered by Piyawat Vitooraporn, an associate from the dispute resolution department. He explained for attendees the key considerations in termination of employment, including procedures, consequences, and causes of unfair termination.
On September 28, Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution group in Bangkok hosted a hybrid seminar entitled “Complex Commercial Litigation,” comprising three main topics—solutions for delay and disruption claims in construction disputes, product liability, and insurer liability in policies relating to product liability and construction. The sessions were presented in Thai language and were moderated by associate Jamorn Pornponwat. In the first presentation, Noppramart Thammateeradaycho, counsel, walked attendees through causes of delay and disruption in construction, went over notable case studies, shared practical tips for making a successful claim, and covered claims under delay and disruption. In the second session, Chusert Supasitthumrong, partner and director of the dispute resolution department, addressed product liability issues. In his presentation, Chusert covered topics such as liability of entrepreneurs, burden of proof, liability and exceptions, disclaimer agreements between consumers and entrepreneurs, representatives of damaged parties, damages, and prescription periods. He also explained some of the legal procedures and steps that accused parties can take to settle a case successfully. In the final presentation, Pongpalin Chantrapirom, associate, covered insurer liability. Pongpalin addressed notable characteristics of insurer liability in insurance policies for product liability and construction. He also raised some illustrative case studies and examples of relevant court judgments.
On October 5, three attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution group in Bangkok—associate Anyamani Yimsaard, counsel Suruswadee Jaimsuwan, and partner Thawat Damsa-ard—met with Judge Paopun Chopnamtaan, the vice secretary of Thailand’s Courts of Justice, to offer their comments on a proposed new system of recording witness testimony in the criminal court in Thailand. The current practice for creating a record of witness testimony in Thai courts is for the judge to speak a summary of the witness’ courtroom statements into an audio recorder for a court clerk to transcribe. The transcription is then read for all parties and the witness to confirm the accuracy of the content. The courts are in the process of replacing this practice with a system of recording witnesses’ courtroom testimony on video. The dispute resolution lawyers’ feedback was sourced mostly from the department’s most recent internal training session. They commented on the pros and cons of the program and shared their experiences with similar systems elsewhere, such as Singapore and the UK. The judge welcomed the input, and looked forward to considering how to apply their suggestions so that the proposed procedural changes can answer various stakeholders’ needs.