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​ 

December 9, 2020
Thailand’s Trade Competition Commission (TCC) has issued new rules governing business relations between food delivery platform operators and the restaurants operating through those platforms. The guidelines identify various arrangements, that are sometimes imposed upon restaurants by digital platforms, as unfair and damaging to restaurant operators, and restrict them accordingly. This is the fourth time that the TCC has deemed it necessary to intervene in a specific industry by restricting certain unfair trade practices in accordance with the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA), and is indicative of the TCC’s greater drive to quell unfair practices using its powers under the TCA. It also shows their willingness to react quickly to new developments in the market—in this case, the substantial increase in restaurant operators selling their products through online platforms in recent months. The Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices between Digital Platform Operators for Food Delivery and Restaurants were published in the Government Gazette on November 23, 2020, and take effect on December 23, 2020. Key Definitions Digital platforms mean online services which establish a trade linkage between restaurant businesses, food deliverers, and consumers—in other words, applications or websites that allow consumers to use restaurants via food deliverers. Digital platform operators for food delivery means the business operators that provide digital platform services, acting as an intermediary to accept the purchase order and deliver food between restaurant operators, food delivery service providers, and consumers; or between restaurant operators and consumers in accepting the purchase order for food. Put simply, they are the companies operating food delivery platforms. Unfair Conduct  The main principle set forth in the TCC’s food delivery guidelines is that business conduct between food delivery platform operators and restaurant operators must respect the freedom of each party; must be fair, noncompulsory, and nondiscriminatory; and must not obstruct another
Read More
December 7, 2020
With virtually all business operations in Thailand affected by the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has been keen to provide relief measures to limit the economic damage. In addition to implementing broad economic relief, this has also meant changes to the government’s own internal operations, and in recent months, the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Ruling Committee has issued two circular letters prescribing guidelines on how government authorities should handle their procurement operations during this period. The circulars, which were issued under the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560 (2017), detail the relief measures for government procurement contracts that cannot be fulfilled because of the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most significantly, the circulars clarify that the impact of COVID-19 should be deemed force majeure under government procurement contracts and government procurement law, which affects the penalties levied on contractors for late performance of required duties under government procurement contracts. The Ruling Committee specified the start of the force majeure period as March 26, 2020 (the date when the government first announced a nationwide state of emergency). This official designation enables contractors to cite disruption from COVID-19 when requesting additional time to perform their duties under a contract, or exemption from or reduction of penalties incurred due to the delay. For contracts that have not yet reached their maturity date, the Ruling Committee granted relief measures by directing the relevant government authorities to count the number of days that COVID-19 has affected performance of the contract, and use this number as the basis for determining an extension of the timeframe for performing the contractual duties. For contracts that have already reached their maturity date, the contractual party that failed to perform according to the contract would normally be subject to an assessed fine for
Read More
December 7, 2020
COVID-19 has had an economic impact across a wide range of industries, including hospitality, airlines, automotive, construction, logistics, and more, and many performance obligations on contractual parties have been rendered impossible. However, many others—while certainly more difficult, complicated, or expensive—remain literally or legally possible. While COVID-19 will continue to have a devastating impact on health and economies globally, governments—including Thailand’s—have implemented preventive and responsive measures in an attempt to mitigate that impact. On May 24, 2020, for example, the Committee for Government Procurement and Supplies Management circulated guidelines for the administration of contracts between private parties during the COVID-19 pandemic, announcing that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a force majeure event. The specific period of force majeure in Thailand began with the government’s announcement of a state of emergency on March 26, 2020. See the previous article for more details on this measure. As market circumstances continue to evolve along with the impact of COVID-19, companies in Thailand are paying special attention to the role force majeure plays in navigating the various legal implications of commercial contracts during the outbreak. Force Majeure Clauses under Thai Law    In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic many are wondering whether parties will be excused from performance under the doctrine of force majeure, by which parties can be excused from contractual performance that becomes impossible due to an extraordinary or exogenous event. For contracts that have no force majeure clause, the definition of force majeure under section 8 of the Civil and Commercial Code will automatically be applied. However, parties may negotiate a force majeure clause and establish a course of action to follow in such events of force majeure. This clause can also pertain to things like excuse of liability, right to terminate or revise the contract, and distribution of damages due to force majeure. Every force majeure clause should be considered
Read More
November 17, 2020
As the exclusive Vietnam member firm of Multilaw, a leading global network of independent law firms, Tilleke & Gibbins contributed the Vietnam section to the network’s Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Guide, which details regimes for enforcing foreign judgments in 74 jurisdictions worldwide.
Read More