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​ 

February 24, 2023
On February 20, 2023, the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam submitted a Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts, as well as a Draft Amendment of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts to seek online comment from interested parties. Notably, the Supreme People’s Court has expressed a desire to establish specialized courts such as an IP court and a bankruptcy court. Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts The Supreme People’s Court reviewed the implementation over the past eight years of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts (“LOPC”), which took effect in 2015. Some highlights of the implementation process, as set out in the Supreme People’s Court’s practical report, are as follows: Re-systematization of all levels of courts: The LOPC systematized the court system in Vietnam, including four levels: Supreme People’s Court Three Superior People’s Courts 765 first-instance trial courts (including 702 district courts and 63 provincial courts) 66 appellate courts (including 63 provincial people’s courts and the three Superior People’s Courts) In addition, the Supreme People’s Court established four adjudicating agencies for cassation and reopening (including three Judicial Committees of the Superior People’s Court and the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court). Support departments for the court have been strengthened, and policies have been developed to train judges. Trial results: From June 1, 2015, to April 30, 2022, the courts have settled 3,187,285 cases of all kinds out of a total of 3,334,915 cases handled (95.57%). Most of the remaining cases are newly accepted and still within the time limit for settlement as prescribed by law. On average, the courts have had to deal with about 476,416 cases each year. Draft Amendment of Law on Organization of People’s Courts Despite the notable
Read More
February 16, 2023
On February 10, 2023, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 03/2023/ND-CP regulating the functions, rights and duties, and organizational structure of the National Competition Commission (“Decree 03”). The National Competition Commission (official English name Vietnam Competition Commission or VCC) was first mentioned in the updated Law on Competition of 2018 and is meant to be the leading authority responsible for the state management of competition matters in Vietnam. However, nearly five years later, no penalty decisions for competition violations under the Law on Competition 2018 have been issued, due to a lack of regulations on the functions of the VCC. Thus, the issuance of Decree 03 is an important milestone and is expected to increase the authorities’ enforcement against competition-related violations in Vietnam. The VCC is an agency under the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) and consolidates the previous Vietnam Competition Council and Vietnam Competition Authority. The VCC is mainly responsible for: (1) carrying out competition proceedings, (2) controlling economic concentration, (3) deciding on exemptions from prohibited anti-competitive agreements, (4) handling appeals of decisions on settlement of competition cases; (5) advising and assisting the MOIT in performing the state management of competition, protecting consumers’ interests, and managing multi-level marketing activities; and (6) other responsibilities as may be assigned by the MOIT. For each case of alleged anti-competition, the chair of the VCC will establish a Council for Handling Anti-Competitive Case, which will dissolve itself upon the fulfillment of its responsibilities. The VCC is made up of 15 members, including the chair and one or more vice chairs, and will also include the following departments: Competition investigation agency; Secretariat of Councils for Handling Anti-Competitive Cases; Competition Supervision Board; and Units perform the function of state management of competition, protection of consumers’ interests, and management of multi-level marketing activities.
Read More
February 8, 2023
Thailand has a robust legal framework for competition, with laws and regulations in place to prevent anticompetitive conduct and market concentration and to promote fair competition. However, as the business environment in the country continues to evolve, it is important for companies operating in Thailand to stay informed about the latest developments in competition laws and regulations. Generally, Thailand’s competition regime is based on the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (the TCA) and its implementing regulations, except for certain industries which are governed by sector-specific competition regulations. The TCA is designed to promote free and fair competition by suppressing anticompetitive behaviors. In this article, we will examine what businesses can expect in the coming year, and what they need to be aware of in order to stay compliant. A Maturing Regulatory Structure The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) is the agency responsible for enforcing competition laws and regulations in Thailand. The TCCT has the authority to oversee the market structure, act to maintain competitiveness in various industries, investigate misconduct, and take action against companies that engage in anticompetitive practices, such as abuse of market dominance, cartels, and unfair trade practices. It also has discretionary power to consider applications for a merger of two or more businesses that may cause monopoly or market dominance. While the TCA and the TCCT had limited success in the decades after the original TCA’s enactment in 1999, a new TCA in 2017 made several significant changes to the previous version of the law. The 2017 TCA guarantees the independence of the TCCT from political and business interventions. It also introduces administrative penalties for less-serious offenses, including non-hardcore cartels, unfair trade practices, and neglect of merger filing duties. Since then, the TCCT has been more active in its issuance of subordinate regulations to
Read More
January 25, 2023
Thailand’s Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) has issued four new regulations under the Energy Business Act B.E. 2550 (2007) setting forth competition regimes to control both anticompetitive conduct and market structure in the energy business sector. The regulations were published in the Government Gazette on December 19, 2022, and took effect the following day. The key provisions of these ERC competition regulations largely mirror those articulated in the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) and its subordinate legislation. The most significant features of these competition regulations are summarized below. Market Definition Regulation The ERC’s market definition regulation (officially the ERC Regulation re: Market Definition and Relevant Market of Related Energy Services B.E. 2565) outlines the general framework for defining relevant markets in the energy sector. The factors to be taken into consideration include types of energy licenses, geographical areas, competition conditions, and interchangeability of energy services. In the annex to this regulation, the ERC has classified the relevant energy service markets as follows: Power business activities include power generation, power transmission system services, power distribution system services, power distribution services, and power system control services. Natural gas business activities include natural gas transmission through pipelines via natural gas transmission systems, natural gas procurement and wholesale via natural gas distribution systems, natural gas retail via natural gas distribution systems, and storage and regasification of liquefied natural gas. The ERC will review its market definitions and relevant energy service markets from time to time, taking into account changes in technology and competition conditions as well as feedback from public hearings. Market Dominance Regulation Under the ERC’s market dominance regulation (officially the ERC Regulation re: Criteria on Business Operator having a Market Dominance B.E. 2565), the ERC is empowered to proactively determine and declare which license-holding energy business operators have a dominant position
Read More