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 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension
Read More
February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
Read More
February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many
Read More
February 1, 2021
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins in Myanmar have contributed to the latest edition of Practical Law’s online Life Sciences Global Guide. The guide is a Q&A-style overview of the regulatory frameworks for the life sciences industry across multiple jurisdictions worldwide, and this year the Myanmar chapter includes two sections, one of which is “Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law in Myanmar.” This section runs through the country’s legal and regulatory environment for patents and trademarks—particularly as they relate to pharmaceutical business in the jurisdiction. The section then turns to IP and competition law issues, with questions and answers focusing on how the country’s competition laws and regulations affect the pharmaceutical sector. Readers are also given information on how to properly comply with Myanmar law on competition, including when it comes to licensing of medicines and pharmaceutical technology. The full Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Myanmar guide can be accessed on the Practical Law website. Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. Tilleke & Gibbins also supplied the “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar,” which Practical Law published in its Life Sciences Global Guide  at the same time.
Read More