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

December 4, 2019

Emergency Interim Measures in Thai Arbitration

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Interim measures are necessary to protect the interests of a claimant in arbitral proceedings when speed is required in obtaining emergency interim relief. In many cases, urgent situations occur even before the filing of a notice of arbitration and the appointment of arbitrators. The institutional rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre include provisions for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator (EA) to handle such emergency situations, and the EA is able to grant interim measures in situations where the arbitrator or the parties have not yet appointed an arbitral tribunal.

Emergency Arbitrator under Thai Arbitration Law   

The concept of an EA has not been incorporated into the rules of the Thai arbitral institutions, the Thailand Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC). However, Thailand’s Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), which governs both domestic and international arbitration, does provide an interim mechanism under section 16, which allows arbitral applicants who have not yet filed a notice of arbitration to petition the court for interim measures, under the condition that, if the court orders accordingly, the applicant has to proceed with the arbitration within 30 days of the date of the order. Failure to initiate the arbitration causes the interim measures to be automatically revoked. Section 16 also allows an arbitral party that requires protection of their interests during pending proceedings to obtain interim measures. Thai courts will apply the Civil Procedure Code in respect of interim measures or emergency injunctions when considering whether to issue interim measures for the requesting party in the arbitration case, and if the court does grant interim measures, the requesting party will likely be ordered to put up a security fund accordingly.

Issuing Interim Measures in Thailand

Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act clearly states that the competent Thai court can issue interim measures, but the law is silent on whether an arbitral tribunal can do the same. To our knowledge, arbitrators have never granted an order or provisional award for interim measures in Thailand, regardless of the institutional rules being used in the arbitration. There could be two reasons. One is that the parties may have gone straight to the court to make such a request, as stipulated in section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act; or the arbitrator could have recommended that the requesting party seek assistance from the court, which has the power to enforce interim measures as well, whereas the Supreme Court has apparently never ruled on the enforcement of an arbitral tribunal’s order on interim measures.

In the international context, the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration confirms that “an interim measure issued by an arbitral tribunal shall be recognized as binding and, unless otherwise provided by the arbitral tribunal, enforced upon application to the competent court, irrespective of the country in which it was issued.” It is very common for an arbitral tribunal to issue interim measures, which the local court can enforce accordingly. This seems to be contrary to Thailand’s situation, where the court holds the power to issue interim measures in the arbitral proceedings and enforce them.

In 2017, the TAI issued a new version of its arbitration rules. Article 39 of the 2017 TAI Arbitration Rules stipulates clearly that an arbitral tribunal may grant interim measures upon a party’s request. Article 39 also provides that a request to the arbitral tribunal for interim measures does not affect the right of the party to petition a court for interim measures as well. This is the first official indication that section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act does not prevent the arbitral tribunal from issuing interim measures—in other words, that an arbitral tribunal in Thailand can issue interim measures. A local practitioner, though, would still recommend petitioning the court for interim measures. This would save time, since the court can enforce its order for interim measures at the same time. Although the arbitral tribunal’s order would be recognizable and enforceable, it could be challenged by the opposing party and revoked by the court.    

Unlike in Thailand, SIAC stipulates the authority of an EA in clause 12 of schedule 1. This clause also precludes the possibility of challenging the EA’s interim order in the local courts. This prevents a party from employing the tactic of using a local court to intervene in the arbitral tribunal’s discretion to issue an interim order. 

On the issue of whether Thailand should use an EA in cases involving the need for urgent interim measures before the appointment of the arbitral tribunal, one could argue that an EA is not necessary, because a court could grant an interim order, even before any party submits an application to initiate arbitration proceedings, under section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act. However, the court would have to apply sections 253–270 of the Civil Procedure Code to issue emergency interim measures, and unlike the interim order of a SIAC EA, the interim order of a Thai court of first instance can be appealed by the opposing party and revoked or changed under section 45 of the Thai Arbitration Act. Thus, obtaining an interim order through a Thai court will use the same domestic litigation procedure. This could create complications and delays, and would not be confidential. Thus, having an EA would protect the interests of the requesting party in a timely and confidential manner, because the EA’s interim order could not be appealed. 

Concluding Thoughts

EAs do not yet exist in Thailand. Under section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act, any party under an arbitration agreement may seek interim measures through the courts even before initiating a notice of arbitration. An interesting question to consider is whether an EA could be appointed and grant an interim order if an ICC or SIAC arbitration is conducted in Thailand, and whether that order would be considered enforceable by a Thai court.

Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act does not address the authority of an arbitral tribunal to issue interim measures. Article 39 of the recent TAI Arbitration Rules seems to indicate that an arbitral party can request an interim measure from either or both the arbitral tribunal and the court. Nevertheless, the Thai Arbitration Act and TAI rules do not provide for the appointment of an EA if emergency interim measures are needed before the arbitral tribunal is appointed. The amendment of section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act to allow an EA to be appointed and issue interim orders would be a substantive change in Thailand’s arbitration law, but it would help boost the efficiency of arbitration proceedings.

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