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​ 

January 16, 2023
The January–March 2023 issue of Asia Franchise & Business Opportunities magazine features an article by two franchising specialists in Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office. Written by Alan Adcock, partner, and Sher Hann Chua, consultant, the article provides a summary of the legislative developments of 2022 most relevant to franchisors and franchisees. The update looks especially at amendments to Thailand’s unfair trade practices in franchising, as well as the far-reaching Personal Data Protection Act, which is reshaping the way businesses—including franchises—are handling the personal data of customers, partners, and employees. The article is accompanied by a Chinese-language summary of the developments. The full article can be read online in the January–March 2023 issue of Asia Franchise & Business Opportunities.
Read More
January 12, 2023
Experts from Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property team have written the Vietnam chapter of Practical Law’s Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide 2022, a high-level comparative overview of intellectual property laws and regulations across more than 30 jurisdictions. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide focuses on business-related aspects of intellectual property, such as the value of intellectual assets in M&A transactions, and the licensing of IP portfolios. The topics covered include the following: IP assignment IP licensing Research and development collaborations IP audits IP aspects of M&A Lending and security interests Settlement agreements Employee and consultant agreements Key issues in IP transactions To read the Vietnam chapter, please visit the Practical Law website or click on the link below.
Read More
December 19, 2022
On November 22, 2022, the Thai cabinet approved in principle the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act (the “Bill”) proposed by the Office of the Consumer Protection Board. While Thailand’s Product Liability Act B.E. 2551 (2008) deals with liability to consumers arising from unsafe products, the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act aims to ensure that consumers are well protected from defects in appliances and vehicles that might not initially be easily visible or noticed. Key Definitions The Bill applies most notably to business operators and consumers. In the Bill, a “business operator” who may potentially be liable is: a manufacturer (or its hirer) of goods for sale; or a consignee or importer who brings goods into Thailand for sale; or a seller or a hire purchase provider who cannot identify the manufacturer (or its hirer) or the importer. As opposed to the Product Liability Act, which clearly provides that all business operators in the supply chain must be jointly liable, the Bill lacks such clear guidance. This could be interpreted as meaning that under the current Bill only the business operator at the top of the supply chain who is sued in the same case as other business operators is responsible. A “consumer” is defined as a purchaser or hirer of goods from a manufacturer, including an assignee or successor of the goods from the purchaser or hirer. Scope and Application The Bill is intended to govern purchase or hire-purchase contracts for: electric appliances; electronic devices; personal cars and motorcycles; other goods that may be set out in a future royal decree issued under the act. The Bill will not apply to any purchase or hire purchase of used products or as-is products when this is clearly stated by the seller or hire-purchase provider or the auctioneer in
Read More
November 24, 2022
On November 24, 2022, Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Marcin Czepelak and leaders of Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs chaired the opening ceremony of the PCA’s Representative Office in Hanoi. Beyond its headquarters in The Hague, the PCA has opened offices in other cities to make its services more accessible in different regions. The Hanoi office will be the PCA’s fourth office outside its headquarters. The PCA, established in 1899, is an intergovernmental organization which provides resolution services for disputes involving states, state entities, international organizations, as well as private entities. It provides and administers arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and fact-finding commissions of inquiry. The PCA’s services are primarily used in Europe and Asia. In cases administered in 2021, approximately 47% of the disputing parties were from the Western European and Others Group of the United Nations Regional Groups, and 40% from the Asia Pacific Group. The majority of disputes resolved by PCA are state-related disputes; however, the PCA’s scope of settlement is also extended to the private sector. The PCA’s Hanoi office is staffed to administer PCA hearings and meetings and will provide administrative services in support of parties and arbitrators conducting arbitral proceedings under the PCA’s auspices, serving as the official channel of communications and ensuring safe custody of documents. The PCA can also provide such services as financial administration, logistical and technical support for meetings and hearings, travel arrangements, and general secretarial and linguistic support. Currently, Vietnam has some active members of the PCA. The opening of the PCA representative office is a step toward realizing commitments between Vietnam and the PCA in their protocol signed in 2021, and serving the evolving dispute resolution needs of states and other entities in the coming years. With the new office in Hanoi, it is expected that
Read More