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

August 23, 2022

Enforcing Indemnification Clauses in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

Indemnification clauses are common contractual provisions in many jurisdictions including Thailand, but enforcing them can be challenging in the eyes of Thai law.

In general, to “indemnify” means to hold another party free of responsibility for a potential risk or loss. When one party (i.e., the “indemnitor”) indemnifies another party (i.e., the “indemnitee”), the indemnitor is obligated to pay or compensate the indemnitee for any liabilities or losses (within the scope agreed in the contract). In this way, an indemnification clause can be a useful provision to shift responsibility for potential risks from one party to another.

In some jurisdictions, “indemnity” includes the recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred by the indemnitee. It may even carry with it the duty to defend or fund the defense of any claim brought against the indemnitee. If that is the case, even though the contract does not say so, the indemnitor would have to hire an attorney and pay the legal fees for the indemnitee.

In contracts that contain an indemnification clause, the indemnity would typically include the duty to defend. Let’s use a case example to elaborate this point. In this hypothetical case, a supplier of machinery agrees to indemnify and defend a retailer against claims from the retailer’s customer in the event that a purchased machine becomes defective. As a result, besides being responsible for the damages that the retailer may suffer based on contract law or negligence, the supplier must also pay for the lawyers to defend the retailer if the customer decides to sue.

In Thailand, this kind of indemnification clause may not be enforceable. Unlike contract rules in many jurisdictions, Thai contract law is silent on “contractual indemnity.” It is commonly understood in Thailand (and confirmed by Supreme Court decision 7943/2542) that “indemnity” means “compensation” under section 222 of the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC). The CCC provides that damages claims are inclusive of all damages “usually” arising from nonperformance of a contract, and further specifies that claimants are allowed to seek compensation for damages arising “from special circumstances, if the party concerned foresaw or ought to have foreseen such circumstances.”

Under this section of the CCC, there are two types of “compensation”: ordinary compensation and special (consequential) compensation. Ordinary compensation is for “direct” damages that could reasonably be anticipated. It may even include loss of opportunity, benefit, income, or profit. For example, using the previous scenario, the retailer could sue the supplier of the defective machine to claim direct damages including the cost of fixing the machine and loss of leasing income while waiting for the repair.

Special compensation refers to compensation for “indirect” damages considered foreseeable by the defendant—either because the plaintiff had already informed the defendant of the risk, or because the defendant ought to have foreseen the damages prior to the breach of the contract. Going back to the same example, if the retailer had agreed to pay a penalty to its customer if the machine was not provided on time, that penalty would be considered “indirect” or “special” damages. The supplier would only be responsible for covering these indirect damages if it was aware when the sale transaction was concluded of the retailer’s agreement regarding the penalty.

The question now becomes: Since the contract between the supplier and the retailer said that the supplier agrees to indemnify and defend the retailer against customer claims, can the retailer recover lawyers’ fees if the supplier fails to hire a lawyer to defend the retailer?

As the Thai codes are silent on contractual indemnification, we must look at relevant Supreme Court decisions for guidance. In decision 4023/2541 from 1998, the Supreme Court considered the validity of a particular contract provision requiring the defendant to pay for the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in the event of the defendant’s default. The court ruled that this provision was void and against public order, explaining that the obligation to pay for the lawyers was against the Civil Procedure Code, which provides that discretion on whether to award attorneys’ fees to a winning party belongs to the court.

However, in 2005 the Supreme Court decided that attorneys’ fees specified in a contract were direct damages that could be claimed as ordinary compensation under the first paragraph in section 222 of the CCC. (Decision 6288/2548)

Just when there appeared to be a new guideline, a 2008 Supreme Court ruling seemed to contradict the 2005 decision by holding that a defaulting party’s contractual obligation to pay attorneys’ fees was not supported by any law, and that the attorneys’ fees were neither direct nor special damages under section 222 the CCC. (Decision 2147/2551)

Based on these divergent Supreme Court decisions, it is unclear how a Thai court might rule in future cases concerning indemnification obligations to cover lawyers’ fees. Parties to potential cases will have to decide how exactly to pursue resolution of disagreements over such contract provisions. Over time, however, additional disputes and cases surrounding this issue will continue to encourage the Supreme Court to revisit these questions. Hopefully, the court will ultimately recognize how common it is around the world for parties to negotiate contract terms on indemnification.

Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 29, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins recently assisted Bitmain, a leading manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware, in successful cancellation action lawsuits against BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks that were unlawfully registered by a local party in Indonesia. Background Founded in 2013, Bitmain is a leading manufacturer of digital currency mining servers, marketed under their BITMAIN and ANTMINER brands. The company has maintained a strong global market share, with customers in over 100 countries and regions. In Indonesia, Bitmain has held the BITMAIN trademark registration in classes 35, 36, 41, and 42 since 2018. However, the company was unable to register the trademark in other classes because a local party had already registered the mark in the desired classes. Bitmain also discovered that their ANTMINER brand had been registered by the same local party, which impeded Bitmain’s application to register the ANTMINER trademark in Indonesia. Bitmain had been using these trademarks and products worldwide long before the local party’s registration in Indonesia, and had also secured trademark registrations in various countries. However, the local party exploited Indonesia’s first-to-file principle, securing the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks before Bitmain could file. This was a classic example of trademark squatting, where a party registers a foreign trademark in a jurisdiction where the original owner has not yet filed, with the intent to profit from the brand’s success. Initial Approach Upon discovering that the local party had made these trademark applications, Bitmain found that one of these applications was still in the publication period. We advised and assisted Bitmain to file opposition against the application, but this opposition was subsequently refused because the local party had already obtained identical BITMAIN trademarks in other classes. Consequently, the application was registered in the Trademark Office database. Following the unfavorable opposition decision, we initially worked with Bitmain to seek a mutually
Read More
April 25, 2025
Vietnam is on the cusp of a major judicial reform with significant implications for intellectual property (IP) litigators. A draft law, expected to be passed in mid-2025, will restructure the court system into a three-tiered judicial hierarchy while retaining the current two-tiered trial structure. The reforms include the anticipated establishment of a specialized IP court and a reallocation of jurisdiction that may fundamentally change how and where IP disputes are resolved. From 63 to 34: Fewer Provinces, Fewer Courts – But Wider Reach Under the new model, the judiciary will be organized into three levels: (i) the Supreme People’s Court, with three newly established appellate courts in Hanoi, Da Nang, and Ho Chi Minh City, (ii) the 34 provincial-level People’s Courts (following a reduction from 63 provinces to 34 due to administrative consolidation), and (iii) a newly created tier of regional-level courts (tòa án khu vực) that will replace the existing district-level courts. Each regional court will encompass several district-level courts within a province. The number of regional courts in each province will be determined based on the number of districts following a planned reduction. While the number of provincial-level courts will decrease, the newly established regional-level courts will be granted expanded jurisdiction. Notably, these courts will have first-instance jurisdiction over a broad range of civil, commercial, and administrative matters. In criminal cases, they will handle offenses punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment, while more serious crimes will remain under the jurisdiction of provincial-level courts. For IP litigators, this likely means that first-instance cases, especially civil infringement disputes, will shift from the provincial level to the lower regional level. These regional courts will become the new battleground for IP enforcement. Same Two-Tier Adjudication, Different Game Board While the judicial structure is evolving, the core adjudicative framework remains unchanged:
Read More
March 13, 2025
Licensing specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok have contributed the Thailand chapter to the newly issued Licensing 2025, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Panoramic to licensing in various jurisdictions around the world. The Thailand chapter covers the following topics: Laws and licensing arrangements: Unfair Contract Terms Act, Trade Competition Act, pre-contractual disclosure, registration of international licensing, implied obligations, Civil and Commercial Code, Trademark Act, Patent Act, Trade Secrets Act Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, security interests, proceedings against third parties, sublicensing, jointly owned IP, first to file, scope of patent protection, trade secrets, copyright Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, legal requirements, user restrictions Royalties and payments, currency conversion, and taxes: Relevant legislation, restrictions, taxation of foreign licensors Competition law issues: Restrictions on trade, legal restrictions, and IP-related court rulings Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages Termination: Right to terminate, impact of termination Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee or licensor bankruptcy Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforceability, injunctive relief, contractual waivers The Thailand chapter was authored by Alan Adcock, partner, and Kasama Sriwatanakul, counsel, both in the Thailand regulatory affairs team. The full Thailand chapter is available below as a PDF. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Vietnam chapter to Licensing 2025. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2025 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
March 6, 2025
On February 18, 2025, the Thai Senate approved an amendment to the Act on the Establishment of and Procedures for the Tax Court. This follows the July 2024 approval by the Thai cabinet and subsequent preparation of supporting secondary legislation. This important amendment to procedural law, once it takes effect, will extend the exclusive jurisdictional powers of the Tax Court to all criminal tax, customs, and excise tax claims in addition to the court’s existing jurisdiction over all such civil claims. The amendment, while now formally approved by the legislature, is awaiting the king’s signature and will take effect 180 days after its publication in the Government Gazette. Based upon its projected publication date, the amendment will likely take effect by the end of the third quarter of this year. This development is set to offer a more sophisticated Tax Court litigation process for highly specialized and often complex criminal tax and customs claims, something with which Thailand’s traditional criminal courts have struggled. It also ensures that all tax and customs matters are adjudicated before the same court, saving time, party costs, and judicial resources. This appears likely to result in more consistent adjudication of criminal tax and customs disputes, a benefit for the Thai government and party litigants alike. Any ongoing criminal tax and customs claims already commenced with the respective criminal courts on the date on which the amendment becomes effective will remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of those criminal courts. The Tax Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over all other claims. This important legislative change offers those managing or otherwise facing civil and/or criminal Thai tax or customs disputes the opportunity to more effectively plan and execute a uniform defense strategy before a single, qualified forum.
Read More