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​ 

September 27, 2022
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ corporate and commercial group in Bangkok have contributed the Thailand chapter of the new Lex Mundi Sustainability and Competition Global Practice Guide. Featuring contributions from Lex Mundi member firms from around the world, the guide seeks to provide in-house and outside counsel with information on ESG (environmental, social, and governance) measures related to the competition regime in each jurisdiction. The chapters, which cover 44 jurisdictions around the world, are provided by member firms in the global Lex Mundi legal network. Each chapter covers the following main areas: Presence of ESG measures and sustainability agreements in the competition regime; Guidance from authorities related to ESG initiatives and competitor working groups; Calculation and reporting of ESG efforts; Precedents involving ESG and sustainability matters in the country; and Antitrust regulations that could lead to ESG litigation. To read the Thailand chapter or browse the other jurisdictional contributions, please visit the Lex Mundi website.
Read More
September 15, 2022
In the course of our work, we often hear about consumers in Thailand lodging complaints with the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) about problems with a purchased product or service. The OCPB is a government agency attached to the Office of the Prime Minister. Its main duties are to protect consumers in Thailand with respect to product advertising, product labeling, and contracts, and to handle consumer complaints. However, there are exceptions to the types of consumer complaints that the OCPB can handle. This is because some consumer complaints must by law be handled by certain specialized agencies. Examples of these exceptions include consumer complaints relating to: health products (food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, household dangerous substances, and narcotics); medical services; insurance; pricing of consumer products; condominium juristic person; public land; rail, water, and air transportation; tourism; education; banking and finance; telecommunications; and electricity and water consumption. Procedure When a consumer complaint that the office can accept comes to the OCPB, the officers first consider whether the business operator has violated any laws, in which case the relevant authorities, such as the police, should handle the matter. When the officers consider it appropriate, they may ask the parties to mediate the dispute. Complaints in Bangkok are mediated by officers at the Bangkok OCPB. For complaints lodged in other provinces, the governors of the provinces may assign officers or agencies under their supervision to mediate. The OCPB can mediate twice within 90 days. If the parties still want to continue with the mediation, a subcommittee of the Consumer Protection Board (CPB)—the body that directs the OCPB—will then conduct two more mediation sessions within 90 days. If a resolution is still not reached, the subcommittee can conduct one additional mediation session before declaring the mediation failed and ending the complaint
Read More
September 8, 2022
Thailand’s Trade Competition Commission has amended the guidelines prohibiting large purchasers from setting unfair credit terms for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The new guidelines, which were published in the Government Gazette on August 17, 2022, revise the definition of SMEs and clarify the duties of concerned parties. The original guidelines, which took effect in December 2021, set a favorable maximum period for credit terms for SMEs selling products or services to a third-party purchaser. Prescribing longer credit terms than the mandatory period would constitute an unfair trade practice in violation of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017). In defining what businesses are considered SMEs, the guidelines set thresholds for the number of employees and amount of annual turnover. The amended guidelines maintain these thresholds, but the new guidelines require that both employee-number and turnover thresholds be met in order for a business to be considered an SME. In contrast, the original guidelines only required either the employee-number threshold or the turnover threshold to be met. This amendment will likely mean that fewer business operators qualify as SMEs. Accordingly, two types of businesses are defined as SMEs under the guidelines: Manufacturers of goods with up to 200 employees and an annual turnover of no more than THB 500 million (approximately USD 13.5 million); or Service providers or wholesale or retail businesses with up to 100 employees and an annual turnover of no more than THB 300 million (approximately USD 8.1 million). To benefit from protection under the new guidelines against unfair credit terms, SMEs must provide documents proving the number of employees and the amount of annual turnover to trade partners that purchase goods or services from them. The new guidelines come into force on September 16, 2022. For more information on the unfair credit term guidelines, or
Read More
September 6, 2022
One unique element of Thailand’s current court procedure is in the way records of witnesses’ courtroom testimony are created. Instead of using a court stenographer to create a verbatim record, the typical method used in Thai courts is for the judge to provide a summary of the witnesses’ courtroom statements. After listening to a witness’ answers to the parties’ questions, the trial judge speaks a summary of the witness’ answers—according to the judge’s own understanding—into an audio recorder, and a court clerk then transcribes it so that it can be read for all parties and the witness to confirm the accuracy of the content. However, Thailand is now exploring ways to update this practice with a system that creates video recordings of witness testimony. Creating a video record of witness testimony was introduced into the Thai court system for some court cases handled by the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court and the Central Bankruptcy Court. However, recording video of witness testimony was not done in general criminal or civil cases until an October 2021 regulation allowed use of video recording in certain important cases and when a witness’ movement is an important element of the testimony. Since then, video of witness testimony was recorded in some criminal cases when the movement of the witness during the testimony was an important factor for the court to consider in deciding the case, such as an eyewitness testifying about a defendant’s movement in committing a crime. So far the practice has remained rare, but it has been done enough to demonstrate the viability of the practice. Now that this has proved ready, Thailand is considering widening the use of video recording for witness testimony in all court cases, starting with criminal cases in Bangkok. Recording witness statements on video is thought
Read More