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​ 

June 13, 2025
In today’s digital age, cyberattacks have become a real threat to organizations worldwide. These attacks can range from phishing and malware to ransomware and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. As the frequency and sophistication of these attacks increase, so does the importance of cybersecurity compliance. In the corporate world, compliance refers to the process of ensuring that a company and its employees adhere to all relevant laws, regulations, standards, and ethical practices—but it should not stop there. Compliance should also encompass asset recovery and disciplinary measures, which can both help organizations address incidents effectively and promote good governance. Cyberattacks are malicious attempts to access or damage a computer system or network, often carried out for financial gain, for political activism, or simply to cause disruption. For instance, a successful attack might involve an attacker creating an email address that closely resembles a legitimate one, perhaps by changing only one or two characters. That email address is then inserted into an existing conversation thread, making it appear as if the user with this email address was already part of the discussion. This tactic can easily deceive a recipient into believing the email was sent from a trusted source, thereby leading them to click on malicious links, provide sensitive information, or even make payments in accordance with the attacker’s request or instructions. Phishing attacks like these are particularly dangerous and can have a serious impact on the ongoing business of a corporation because they exploit the trust and familiarity established in the original email chain. Effective Mitigation Approaches Mechanisms for addressing the aftermath of a crisis provide important recourse to affected organizations, but effective compliance mechanisms can minimize the risk of such crises ever occurring. Companies should therefore prioritize preventative measures and implementation of effective crisis management schemes. Various legal
Read More
June 11, 2025
Thailand’s tax dispute resolution framework has undergone a significant transformation with the enactment of the Act Establishing the Tax Court and the Procedure for Tax Cases (No. 3) B.E. 2568. Published in the Government Gazette on May 27, 2025, the amended act will come into force on November 24, 2025, which is 180 days after its publication. The amended act marks a pivotal shift in the jurisdiction and procedures of the Tax Court, most notably by empowering it to adjudicate certain criminal tax cases for the first time. Background and Rationale The Tax Court was originally established in 1985 as a specialized forum to handle complex tax disputes, including those related to revenue, customs, and excise taxes. The creation of the Tax Court recognized the need for judicial expertise in tax law, given its technical and specialized nature. The latest amendment is designed to address procedural inefficiencies, modernize court processes, and align Thailand’s tax litigation system with international standards. The reform demonstrates Thailand’s commitment to enhancing the efficiency, transparency, and fairness of its tax dispute resolution mechanisms. Key Amendments and Provisions Six of the key changes in the amendment are highlighted below. Expansion of jurisdiction to criminal tax cases. The most significant change is the extension of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to include criminal offenses under the Revenue Code, customs law, excise tax law, and other tax-related laws that may be specified by royal decree. New sections in the act explicitly grant the Tax Court authority to hear and decide criminal tax cases, so individuals and entities accused of criminal tax evasion or other tax-related crimes will now have their cases heard by judges with specialized tax expertise. The law also clarifies the Tax Court’s jurisdiction when a single act constitutes multiple offenses (some tax-related, some not) or when
Read More
June 4, 2025
On April 2, 2024, the Cambodian Competition Commission (CCC) issued Decision No. 087 on Requirements and Procedures of Exemptions under the Law on Competition, outlining the requirements and procedures for requesting exemptions for agreements or activities that could prevent, restrict, or distort competition in Cambodia. Franchise agreements often include clauses such as price fixing, exclusive supply arrangements, or territorial restrictions, which could potentially raise concerns under the Law on Competition. Therefore, it is necessary for both franchisors and franchisees to understand how the law applies to their agreements and whether an exemption request may be required. Some arrangements under franchise agreements may fall within the scope of prohibited practices under the Law on Competition. These include horizontal and vertical agreements, abuse of dominant position, and anti-competitive business combination. If a business owner contemplates that their franchise agreement could be interpreted as anti-competitive, they must assess whether to apply for an exemption. Key Criteria for Exemption Under Decision No. 087, the CCC may grant an exemption if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed agreement or activity meets all four of the following conditions: Significant and identifiable benefits: The agreement must provide clear technological, social, or economic benefits such as cost efficiencies, qualitative efficiencies, initiations of new technologies, or environmental and sustainable benefits. Necessity of the agreement/activities: These benefits must not be achievable without the proposed agreement or activity. The applicant must show that prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition are essential to realizing the benefits. Benefits outweigh harm: The positive impacts must significantly outweigh any adverse effects caused by the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition, and the benefits should be likely to materialize within one year. No elimination of competition: The agreement must not eliminate competition in any substantial aspect of goods or services. Application and Supporting Documents
Read More
June 4, 2025
The growth of Vietnam’s vibrant digital economy offers tremendous potential but is also a driver of the persistent problem of online intellectual property (IP) infringement. The spectrum of issues faced by IP rights holders runs from copyright piracy on digital services (such as streaming and torrent sites) to the sale of counterfeit goods via e-commerce sites and social platforms to the misuse of rights through misleading use of trademarks. These infringements do not only eat into profits; they damage brand reputation and mislead consumers. As a result, site blocking and keyword blocking have become increasingly important components of the enforcement toolkit available in Vietnam. Legal Framework for Blocking Actions Site and keyword blocking in Vietnam is supported by a growing legal framework, particularly following the 2022 amendment to the IP Law. Prior to this, the legal basis for blocking was scattered across various laws, and internet service providers (ISPs) were only obligated to block access to infringing content upon official requests from authorities. The introduction of Article 198b under the amended IP Law marked a significant shift, establishing a clearer mechanism for rights holders to request site blocking directly. This provision obliges them to act upon valid takedown or blocking requests. In addition to the IP Law, other key legislation includes the Law on Information Technology, the Law on Cybersecurity, the Law on Advertising, and various decrees. Together, these laws provide a more structured and enforceable basis for blocking actions in Vietnam, though practical enforcement still depends on ISP cooperation and the clarity of the infringement evidence. Competent Authorities Previously, rights holders could pursue administrative actions through specialized inspectorates under the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, or the Vietnam E-Commerce and Digital Economy Agency (iDEA). However, due to a recent government restructuring,
Read More