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​ 

November 3, 2023
Vietnam’s new Law on Protection of Consumer Rights No. 19/2023/QH15 (CPL 2023) was promulgated by the National Assembly on June 20, 2023, and will replace the existing Law on Protection of Consumer Rights No. 59/2010/QH12 (CPL 2010) when it enters into effect on July 1, 2024. The main points of interest of the CPL 2023 are summarized below. 1. Definition of Consumer Under the CPL 2023, a consumer is defined to be “a person who purchases and/or uses products, goods and services with the aim of consumption for daily needs of individuals, families, or organizations, and not for commercial purposes” (Article 3.1). Compared to the CPL 2010, this definition introduces the phrase “and not for commercial purposes” to emphasize the exclusive focus on the consumption of goods and services. However, the CPL 2023 retains the use of the term “person” for defining a consumer, leading to uncertainty regarding whether an organization or a family can qualify as a consumer. Similarly, the CPL 2023, as in the CPL 2010, maintains an ambiguous comma between “purchase” and “use,” so it remains somewhat ambiguous whether purchase (without use) or use (without purchase) of goods/services is sufficient to qualify as a consumer under the law. 2. Vulnerable Consumers The CPL 2023 introduces a new concept known as the “vulnerable consumer.” This term pertains to a consumer who, at the time of purchase or use of products/services, is potentially subject to various adverse situations in terms of information access, health, property, or dispute settlement. This category encompasses individuals such as the elderly and disabled, children, ethnic minorities, people of remote or economically difficult regions, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers of infants under 36 months, individuals with severe illnesses, and members of poor households (Article 8.1). The rights and privileges of vulnerable consumers must be
Read More
October 30, 2023
A Resounding Victory The last days of October brought some excitement for one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, Novartis, when its patent litigation case in Vietnam against a local generic manufacturer, which had stretched over more than eight years, finally came to an end. The background of this case is quite simple. Novartis was the owner of a patent protecting the active ingredient vildagliptin, which was commercialized through its Galvus® product, a medicine used to treat type 2 diabetes. In 2015, the company found that a drug manufacturer in Vietnam’s Binh Duong province on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City was producing a medicinal product containing the vildagliptin active ingredient—an infringement of its patent. Novartis first submitted a request to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to apply administrative sanctions on this infringer. Subsequently, the MOST Inspectorate concluded in July 2015 that the defendant had committed patent infringement and ordered them to stop producing the infringing drugs and recall them from the market. However, the defendant did not comply with the conclusion, and sought an appeal while it continued to produce the infringing medicine. Realizing that administrative sanctions were not strict enough to deter the defendant, Novartis continued to protect its legitimate rights and interests by initiating a lawsuit at the provincial court where the defendant was headquartered, Binh Duong. Novartis claimed that the defendant had infringed the patent and requesting the defendant to compensate for damages at the highest level allowed by law, pay attorney fees, and publicly apologize to Novartis in specialized newspapers. This began a long journey full of challenges that finally ended with the second appellate judgment declared by the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City on October 17, 2023. The court accepted all claims raised by the
Read More
October 17, 2023
On June 20, 2023, Vietnam’s new Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights (“CPL 2023”) was officially promulgated, followed two days later by a new Law on E-Transactions (“LOET 2023”). The new laws, which will both take effect from July 1, 2024, replacing the CPL 2010 and the LOET 2005, respectively, provide new regulations for e-commerce platforms and will impact e-commerce activities in Vietnam. Some of the more significant changes are outlined below. Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights Regulation of offshore entities: Previously, the CPL 2010 regulated only organizations and individuals in the territory of Vietnam. Under the CPL 2023, both onshore and offshore agencies, organizations, and individuals related to protecting consumers’ rights are regulated. In other words, Vietnam intends to monitor and manage activities of platforms with no legal presence in Vietnam. Remote transactions: Previously, the laws on consumer protection regulated “remote contracts.” The CPL 2023 introduces and defines “remote transactions” as transactions made online, by electronic means or by other means wherein consumers cannot check or have direct contact with products, goods or services before participating in the transaction. In addition, the CPL 2023 also provides for additional responsibilities of business entities offering remote transactions such as adequately and precisely providing consumers with information when entering into these remote transactions, including the rights of consumers in case of incomplete or inaccurate provision of information and complaint handling mechanisms. Online businesses: The CPL 2023 introduces “online businesses,” which are defined as (i) those trading products, goods, and services via their self-established platforms or digital platforms or (ii) those establishing or operating intermediary digital platforms. According to the Vietnam Competition Commission in a recent workshop, the definitions of “digital platforms” and “intermediary digital platforms” can be referred to in the LOET 2023 (see below). Under this new category, online
Read More
September 18, 2023
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have prepared the Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand sections of the recently released Global Merger Notification Guide from Lex Mundi. The guide provides answers to key questions related to the merger notification requirements in jurisdictions of Lex Mundi member firms in 57 jurisdictions around the world. Each country-specific section contains in-depth information on the jurisdiction’s legal framework governing merger notifications, addressing the following questions and topics: Regulatory agency for merger notifications Transactions subject to national rules Timeline for filing merger notifications Merger review process Sanctions for not fulfilling merger notification requirements Remedial options for addressing the regulator’s competition concerns Current regulatory outlook and other notable information The guide draws on the expertise of Lex Mundi member firms from around the world. Its innovative format allows users to compare current information from multiple jurisdictions in a side-by-side, customizable report. To browse the contributions, generate country-specific reports, and compare regulatory guidance on merger notification requirements across multiple jurisdictions, please visit the Lex Mundi website.
Read More