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​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More