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

April 27, 2011

Draft Surrogacy Act Under Consideration

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Recent headlines of a company offering surrogacy services in exchange for money have brought the issue of assisted reproductive technologies back into the public eye, shedding light on the fact that Thai law has not kept up with advancements in infertility treatment. Currently, couples in Thailand who wish to have a child, yet for whatever reason are unable to do so via natural methods, have limited options, adoption being the most common. But what about those couples who wish to have a child that is genetically theirs?

Assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization and surrogacy are also options.  Parental legal rights and duties are set out in the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand, and adoption is outlined under the Child Adoption Act.  But while assisted reproductive technologies exist and are utilized in Thailand, the matter falls into a legal “grey area.”  Now a draft piece of legislation, the Surrogacy Act, seeks to specify the legal bases and add some much-needed clarity to the issue.

The Surrogacy Act has, in fact, been in the drafting process for several years; having already been passed by the Cabinet, it is still under review and awaiting approval of the Parliament.  Under the proposed legislation, legally married couples would be allowed to engage a surrogate mother to carry out pregnancy on their behalf.  These are some of the conditions that must be met:

  • The couple must be both mentally and physically prepared to become parents.
  • The surrogate mother must not be an ancestor or descendant of the social parents.
  • The surrogate mother must have previously delivered a child, and in the case she is married, the husband’s consent must also be granted.
  • An appraisal must be carried out according to the rules, procedures, and conditions as prescribed under the Surrogacy Act, which must cover environmental factors as well as potential diseases which could impact the newborn.

Most importantly, the Surrogacy Act sets out the rights of the social parents, the surrogate mother, and the newborn child.  Under present law, a child born through surrogacy is considered the legitimate child of the birth mother (and her husband, if legally married), meaning the social parents do not have any legal parental rights to the child.  The general method of dealing with this situation is, subsequent to delivery, for the prospective parents to go through the process of adoption.  But this of course entails a lengthy process in dealing with the related governmental authorities; and particularly for foreign couples engaging a Thai surrogate mother, burdensome time and expense.

Surrogacy arrangements have yet to be tested in the Thai courts, and an agreement or contract entering into a surrogacy arrangement before the Surrogacy Act becomes effective could be deemed to violate provisions of public order and/or good morals.

Based on the current draft wording of the bill, all the legal parental rights and duties will be conferred to the social parents without the need to go through the adoption process or proceed with other legally more dubious methods.  In addition, the Juvenile and Family Court is granted jurisdiction to hear cases involving any disputes related to parenthood as a result of surrogacy, which is a much-needed step in the direction of protecting the rights of prospective parents—for example, in case the birth mother reneges on a surrogacy arrangement and decides to keep the child for herself.

It should be noted that as it stands, commercial surrogacy is not explicitly illegal under Thai law.  However, the practice would be strictly prohibited if the Surrogacy Act passes.  No payments or compensation of any kind would be allowed to be made to the surrogate mother, the exception being those related to health maintenance costs at the time of pregnancy, delivery, and post-delivery although the criteria for such have yet to be established.

Under the new law, engaging in commercial surrogacy would entail heavy penalties—a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment and fine of up to 200,000 baht.  And both brokerage and advertising, whether for commercial benefit or not, would also be strictly prohibited, with violation resulting in a maximum of five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to 100,000 baht.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
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