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 7, 2012

Getting the Deal Through – Product Liability 2012, Thailand Chapter

Subscribe to Updates
Law Business Research

Getting the Deal Through has published a multi-jurisdictional guide to product liability, covering 33 jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter, updated for 2012, is in a Q&A format, and has been written by Michael Ramirez, consultant in Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution department. The chapter provides an update on the Product Liability Act, how its provisions are interpreted in practice, and the extent to which it is fulfilling the aims for which it was enacted. Specifically, the chapter covers the following:

  • A brief introduction to the civil litigation system, the courts, judges and juries, pleadings, timings, summons, pre-filing requirements, amending and adding claims, and the basic structure of a trial.
  • Evidentiary issues and damages, the nature of pre-trial preservation, disclosure of documents, general rules on evidence, whether and how the courts appoint experts, and alternatives to the lack of pre-trial discovery in Thailand.
  • Damages available, under contractual and tortuous injury, for product liability claimants particularly after the implementation of the Consumer Case Procedure Act in August 2008 (which now includes mental damages, for example).
  • Litigation fees, funding, legal aid, third-party funding, and the permissibility of contingency fees.
  • Sources of law governing product liability, including statutes, traditional theories of liability (such as negligence under the Civil and Commercial Code and strict liability), consumer legislation, criminal law (such as the Hazardous Substance Act 1992), and the burden of proof for these areas of law.
  • Limitations periods applicable, the types of defenses available (such as compliance with standards or requirements, the fact that injury could not have been prevented even with due care, that injury was not the proximate cause or was unforeseeable, etc.), and the law on appeals.
  • Jurisdictional analysis which covers milestones, trends, the level of consumerism and  consumer knowledge in Thailand, the status of product liability law, its development, and a characterization of its maturity.

Getting the Deal Through – Product Liability is published by Law Business Research, and takes an informative approach, while also providing concise analysis of key areas of the law for corporate counsel and legal practitioners around the world.

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through – Product Liabilty 2012 (published in July 2012; contributing editors: Harvey L Kaplan and Gregory L Fowler of Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP). For further information please visit www.GettingTheDealThrough.com.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 25, 2025
In the Thailand contribution to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, four members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok labor and employment team outline key aspects of dispute resolution in Thailand. Their analysis, part of Lexology Panoramic’s comparative guide covering jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the following areas: 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, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and 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 and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The complete Thailand chapter can be downloaded below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
September 25, 2025
Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Phnom Penh have authored the Cambodia chapter of Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, the latest edition of Lexology Panoramic’s global guide to handling labor and employment disputes. The chapter provides practical insights on a wide range of dispute resolution issues, including: 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, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and 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 and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The full Cambodia chapter is available for download below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More