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​ 

October 21, 2024
Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression
Read More
October 2, 2024
As Thailand is a contracting state of the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, international arbitral awards can, in principle, be enforced in Thailand. However, not all awards will necessarily be enforceable. The Arbitration Act BE 2545 (2002) gives courts the discretion to deny the enforcement of an award if the court determines that enforcing it would be contrary to “public order or the good morals of the people” (often referred to as “public policy”). Similarly, the Arbitration Act allows a court to set aside a domestic award if its recognition would violate public policy. This discretionary power of the court is prescribed by the law and does not require any party to make an argument on public policy grounds to trigger such power. A recent Supreme Court judgment demonstrates that a court considering an award will review the legality of the arbitral proceedings as well as the content of the award. In this case, the Supreme Court set aside an award on the grounds that it violated public policy because it was the result of arbitration that did not proceed in accordance with the relevant law. Under Thai bankruptcy law, after the Bankruptcy Court accepts a request for rehabilitation of a debtor, all civil proceedings against that debtor, including arbitration proceedings, must be stayed until the court orders otherwise or until the rehabilitation case ceases. In this matter before the Supreme Court, however, the arbitrator continued with the arbitration and went on to render an award even after the court had accepted the request for rehabilitation. The award was later challenged to be set aside on the grounds that continuing with the arbitration was against public policy. While setting aside the award was arguably unnecessary, in this case (as the relevant bankruptcy law
Read More
October 1, 2024
Three of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Vietnam have contributed the Vietnam chapter to the newly issued Labor and Employment Disputes 2024, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Panoramic to labor and employment dispute resolution in various jurisdictions around the world. The Vietnam chapter covers the following topics: Pre-action considerations: Key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: Forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service Defendants and legal personality: Types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: Procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties to proceedings, consolidating proceedings Class and collective actions: Special considerations Evidence: Witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: Availability, requirements Trial: Hearings conduct and typical time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting Elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: Available types, requirements and expectations Enforcement: Collective employment and labor rights, enforcement of collective rights, standing Remedies and enforcement: Available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: Appeal procedure and time frames, other means of challenge Update and trends: Recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The Vietnam chapter was authored by Truc Thi Thanh, Linh Ngoc Nguyen, and Kien Trung Trinh. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Thailand chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2024.
Read More
October 1, 2024
Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Bangkok have contributed the Thailand chapter to the newly issued Labor and Employment Disputes 2024, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Panoramic to labor and employment dispute resolution in various jurisdictions around the world. The Thailand chapter covers the following topics: Pre-action considerations: Key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: Forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service Defendants and legal personality: Types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: Procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties to proceedings, consolidating proceedings Class and collective actions: Special considerations Evidence: Witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: Availability, requirements Trial: Hearings conduct and typical time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting Elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: Available types, requirements and expectations Enforcement: Collective employment and labor rights, enforcement of collective rights, standing Remedies and enforcement: Available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: Appeal procedure and time frames, other means of challenge Update and trends: Recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The Thailand chapter was authored by Eric M. Meyer, Chusert Supasitthumrong, Pathanin Sornchangwat, and Chayathorn Kruatao, all in the Thailand dispute resolution and litigation team. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2024. The full Thailand chapter is available below as a PDF.
Read More