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​ 

August 25, 2023
Michael Ramirez, a counsel in Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution department, has contributed an article to a series on contractual terms in Asia from the Asian Business Law Institute. Previous articles in the series have looked at administrative and tax requirements and contract breach and remedy under Thai law. The article gives an overview of how extracontractual liabilities are treated under Thai law. It addresses issues related to contract negotiations, no-reliance clauses, entire agreement clauses, and concurrent liability. ABLI, which is based in Singapore, conducts legal research and dissemination in order to provide knowledge, guidance, and recommendations surrounding development of legal systems in Asia. The full article on extracontractual liabilities is available as a PDF through the button below.
Read More
August 23, 2023
Introduction The idea of the metaverse rose to prominence in the public discourse in 2021, most notably when Facebook renamed itself Meta and announced a new focus on launching a virtual, immersive world. The initial excitement around the metaverse has since faded, with worsening economic conditions having a particularly acute effect on companies in the technology sector. When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in March 2023 that artificial intelligence (AI) was the company’s “single largest investment,” many took this as a sign of the company shifting focus away from the metaverse. However, there remains significant interest in the metaverse from both businesses and consumers. Zuckerberg himself reaffirmed Meta’s focus on the metaverse, highlighting how developments in AI will improve virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technology. Meanwhile, Roblox, a metaverse gaming platform, announced that in Q1 2023, its number of daily active users had increased to 66 million. Most recently, the announcement by Apple of its new ‘Vision Pro’ AR headset is reported to have renewed interest in the metaverse among developers. A particular area of interest in the developing metaverse is digital fashion and retail. In its Metaverse Fashion Trends Report 2022, Roblox found that nearly three in four users aged 14 to 24 spend money on digital fashion items. Roblox itself has partnered with fashion brands Burberry, Gucci, Tommy Hilfiger, and others, to offer experiences and items for use on the platform. In March 2023, Decentraland, a metaverse platform with a decentralized governance structure, hosted the Metaverse Fashion Week, featuring brands such as Adidas, Coach, and DKNY. As businesses continue to invest and look for opportunities to expand into the metaverse, whether through traditional e-commerce or more innovative digital asset offerings, it is important that they consider the ways in which new and existing laws apply
Read More
August 3, 2023
Tilleke & Gibbins’ insurance specialists in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand have contributed to the Law and Jurisdiction in Insurance and Reinsurance Contracts – Asia Pacific guide produced by RPC. The guide addresses how governing law, jurisdiction, and arbitration clauses are used in insurance and reinsurance contracts. For each jurisdiction in the Asia Pacific region, the guide addresses the following topics: Governing law; Arbitration; Mediation; and Limitations and time bars on claims. The Law and Jurisdiction in Insurance and Reinsurance Contracts – Asia Pacific guide is available below.
Read More
July 11, 2023
Can computer programs resolve legal disputes? For decades, the answer from much of the legal community has been no. However, developments in artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular natural language processing and machine learning, have led to renewed discussions of this possibility. Increasingly, tools are being developed to assist parties with litigation outcome prediction and judges with litigation outcome determination. However, while some argue that the use of AI in legal disputes can reduce the length of proceedings, cut costs, and improve access to justice, others raise concerns that “black box” AI systems could reduce transparency, entrench bias, and harm the development of the law. Litigation Outcome Prediction The use of computers to predict the outcome of legal cases is not new. As early as the 1980s, researchers developed outcome prediction tools, often in the form of decision-tree algorithms. However, developments in AI have allowed the creation of more sophisticated prediction models. In 2017, a model built by Katz et al. predicted US Supreme Court decisions with an accuracy of 70.2%, while in 2019, a model built by Medvedeva et al. predicted decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with an accuracy of 75%. In various studies, AI tools have been able to predict case outcomes more accurately than expert lawyers. Companies such as Solomonic and Lex Machina, owned by LexisNexis, now provide commercial litigation prediction and analytics tools. Outcome prediction tools can be used by parties and their legal representatives to craft arguments and facilitate settlement negotiations, or by third-party litigation financers to assess the risk of providing funding. More broadly, outcome prediction may be used by the likes of insurance companies to help calculate claim payouts. However, those using such tools must take care to ensure that they do not breach any professional or legal obligations.
Read More