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 2, 2023
Efficiency and predictability in the global supply chain are critical for business operations. Whether involved in manufacturing, distribution, logistics, or even in the provision of services, most business operators rely upon problem-free customs clearance in the countries in which they operate. If customs disputes do arise and are not effectively addressed, they can have a profound impact on operations, delaying delivery, creating potential civil and criminal liabilities, or even resulting in the seizure of imported goods. Often, importers or their agents can become complacent, particularly where there has been a period of months or even years of customs clearance without encountering any issues. However, disputes can arise, often relating to origin of goods, classification, and duty assessment. When not addressed early in the dispute process or through settlement, a dispute can escalate, leading to issuance of official letters of assessment by customs authorities. Once Thai customs has issued such a formal letter of assessment to an importer, discretion in settlement is gone and only the full value of the duty assessment can be accepted. At this stage, the only legal avenue for challenge is to accept the duty assessment or to litigate. This article addresses post-assessment litigation options to challenge official customs duty assessments. Customs Board of Appeals Once an official assessment is made, an importer has the right to seek a formal appeal of the customs assessment with the Customs Board of Appeals or to otherwise make payment of the full assessment within 30 days of the date it received the assessment. Extensions of time are not permitted. With few exceptions, the right to appeal does not allow the importer to defer an assessed duty payment. This means that the importer must post security for the assessed duty at the time of filing the appeal. This essentially means
Read More
May 23, 2023
Life sciences specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Bangkok have contributed a new “Life Sciences Commercialization in Thailand” chapter to the Life Sciences Global Guide from Practical Law. The Q&A-style guide provides strategic information for companies active in the life sciences sector in Thailand. The chapter covers a number of key areas: Overview of the life sciences sector Pricing, government funding, and reimbursement: National health care system, price regulation and reimbursement Distribution and sale Cross-border trade and parallel imports Advertising and engagement with patient organizations Patents: Conditions for patentability, registration, length of protection, infringement, international treaties Trademarks: Requirements, registration Competition law issues: Authorities and legislation, commercial contracts and competition law, licensing approvals and formalities Product liability: Regulators, medicinal product liability law, liable partners, defenses, product liability claims, remedies 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. The full “Life Sciences Commercialization in Thailand” section can be found on the Practical Law website.
Read More
April 28, 2023
Thailand’s legal system is based on European continental civil law systems, with a three-tier court system. Precedents set by the Thai Supreme Court are merely considered as examples of the application of laws and are not binding on Thai courts. While the country’s judiciary and dispute resolution mechanisms are well developed, some aspects can be unfamiliar or even surprising to counsel unfamiliar with the Thai court system. This article introduces some of the Thai civil court procedures and practices, and covers several key issues it is important to understand regarding civil litigation in Thailand. Offers of compromise or settlement In Thailand, there is no such thing as an ‘offer without prejudice’. Anything put in writing can be used against the offering party. Therefore, compromises, settlements, and offers to compromise or settle should not be made before consulting with legal counsel. Similarly, parties at trial or anticipating litigation should be cautious in all communications with the opposing party. Location of assets Before initiating litigation, plaintiffs should investigate the nature and extent of the defendant’s assets in Thailand and abroad. A monetary judgment is of limited value if the defendant has little or no recoverable assets. Therefore, any information a claimant has on the opposing party should be assessed at the beginning of the case or as soon as is reasonably possible. Language of documents All documents submitted to a Thai court must be in the Thai language. Foreign documents must be the originals or certified copies, and certain documents also need to be notarised and then authenticated by a Thai consular official. Court costs A plaintiff must pay a court filing fee when submitting a case. This is usually 2% of the claim amount but will not exceed THB 200,000 per action for claims of up to THB 50 million.
Read More
April 28, 2023
On March 28, 2023, Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance and Ministry of Commerce issued Inter-Ministerial Prakas No. 168 on Penalties for Persons Violating the Law on Competition. This release was in line with the country’s recent establishment of a framework and thresholds for merger filings. The penalties for violating the Law on Competition center on the following three offenses: 1.  Entering into vertical agreements. This can be done by: requiring buyers to resell goods or services in limited geographic locations; requiring buyers to resell goods or services to specific customers or specific types of customers; requiring buyers to purchase goods or services from one seller only; preventing sellers from selling goods or service to other buyers; or requiring buyers to buy additional goods or services that are not related to the goods or services being sold. 2. Abusing a dominant market position. This can be done by: requiring or persuading suppliers or customers to not do business with competitors; refusing to supply goods or services to competitors; selling goods or services subject to commercial terms that require buyers to buy other goods or services separately that are not related to the purpose of the transaction; selling goods or services below production cost; or refusing to give competitors access to the necessary means of selling their goods and services. 3.  Undertaking a business combination that actually or potentially restricts or distorts market competition. Each of these violations is punishable by a fine of 3% to 10% of the infringer’s total turnover during the period of violation, limited to three years. Next Steps The first half of 2023 has seen three new regulations strengthening Cambodia’s competition law framework, as noted above. Although certain unclear terms do remain, regulators are expected to issue additional decisions in 2023. For more details on
Read More