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

March 23, 2020

The Impact of COVID-19 and Other Extraordinary Events on Contractual Performance

Subscribe to Updates

The dawn of the new decade brought with it familiar expectations of prosperity in global and regional commerce. This expectation has resonated throughout the ASEAN region and Thailand in particular, an historical favorite in the region for tourism and business investment. By the close of 2019 tourism numbers were at historic highs and investment in business and infrastructure were on the rebound, with parties to contracts in the region from both within and outside Thailand committing substantial resources to existing or contemplated commercial contracts.

But extraordinary events can disrupt even the most favorable of economic pictures. COVID-19 and its rapid escalation into a global pandemic has had a significant impact, not only on the global economic outlook, but also on regional operators’ business plans. The Thai government, following the lead of the WHO and other regional and global players, has employed measures to limit travel and public gatherings and in some cases has even restricted access to government functions. These measures, along with measures implemented by other countries, have caused unprecedented business disruptions affecting business operators in ways that may significantly impair their ability to meet their commercial contract obligations. But does this and similar global shocks constitute an excuse for nonperformance of commercial contracts? The answer lies largely in an analysis of the law of force majeure  and impossibility.

Force Majeure and Business Disruptions

Force majeure  is defined broadly as an event that could not have been reasonably anticipated and is otherwise beyond a party’s control. This is codified in Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code. Thai statutory law does not provide a list of specific instances that constitute force majeure , but the Thai Supreme Court has found that a party may be excused from certain contractual obligations in instances of widespread fire, flooding, extreme natural disruptions, extraordinary acts of government, and in periods of significant unrest. What is certain, however, is that the Thai Supreme Court has historically taken a conservative stance and has ruled that a party is excused from performance obligations in only a minority of force majeure  disputes. For this reason, parties wishing to avoid the uncertainty of the courts’ interpretation of force majeure  should consider including specific force majeure  clauses in their contracts.

Many commercial contracts, particularly in construction and supply of goods, contain some form of standard force majeure  clause. These clauses typically include a specific but limited list of events that are not within the control of the contracting parties. These may include events such as acts of God, war, and terrorism; but epidemics or pandemics, while increasingly common, are still not included in many force majeure  clauses. That said, specific force majeure  provisions are typically more inclusive than statutory force majeure  law and, as such, provide more certainty to contracting parties in the case of extraordinary events covered by the provision. While a specific force majeure  provision is preferred, it should be noted that statutory force majeure  law will be applied even where the contract is silent.

Impossibility

Thai statutory law further provides that if a contractual obligation becomes impossible to perform due to a future circumstance for which the party is not responsible, then that party may be excused from performance. For example, if performance becomes impossible due to a force majeure  or similar event, then a party would not be at fault for failure to perform under the contract. Neither would that party be entitled to compensation under the contract.

While there exist exceptions to the rule of impossibility, such as for certain specially ordered and manufactured products, the general rule may apply, provided that a party has done all that is reasonable under the circumstances, has not contributed to the breach, and could not have reasonably anticipated the events resulting in the impossibility of performance.

COVID-19

While the Thai Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the case of a healthcare pandemic as a basis for force majeure , it is widely believed that, given the extraordinary impact COVID-19 has had to date, the pandemic may indeed constitute a force majeure  event on which a party could rely in arguing that it should be excused from its contractual obligations, regardless of specific reference in a contract. The analysis does not end simply with a determination of force majeure , however.

Even where an event qualifies as a force majeure  event under statute or contract, resulting in an impossibility to perform, a dispute must nonetheless be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a party should be excused from performance of a given contract. For example, the law requires that a party seeking to avail itself of force majeure  as an excuse for nonperformance has an obligation to take reasonable care in seeking to limit and otherwise mitigate the effect of the force majeure  event. This can mean having contingency plans in place, being reasonably adaptive to developing events, and generally doing all that is reasonably necessary to seek to meet its contractual obligations. It is not enough to simply stand by and claim excuse from contractual obligations due to the unforeseen event. In fact, even some global emergencies may not impair a party’s ability to find alternative means to meet its contractual obligations, while in others the disruptions may indeed make it impossible to perform. Each situation and contract is unique, and these differences and the reactions of parties are critical in determining whether a court will impose some obligation on a party under the contract even where an event is defined clearly as force majeure .

COVID-19 represents an unprecedented shock to the world economy and to individual commercial contract obligations. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of planning, evaluation, and adaptation to limit legal uncertainties for businesses reliant on good-faith agreements with their business partners. This includes regular review of business plans and contractual provisions, such as force majeure  language, to ensure that business operators are best positioned to deal with legal complications from unexpected business disruptions.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 31, 2025
On September 29, 2025, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC Office) published its Regulations on the Review and Certification of Binding Corporate Rules B.E. 2568 (2025) (the Regulations). The Regulations provide clarity on the PDPC Office’s approach to reviewing and certifying binding corporate rules (BCRs) under Section 29 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), and aim to facilitate international data transfers within a group of undertakings or enterprises (a “corporate group”). In conjunction with this development, the PDPC Office also approved BCRs for two companies operating in Thailand on September 30, 2025. This milestone represents the first concrete progress since the PDPC’s Notification on Criteria for the Protection of Personal Data Sent or Transferred to a Foreign Country pursuant to Section 29 of the PDPA B.E. 2566 (2023) came into effect in March 2024. Some key features of the Regulations are set out below. Categorization of BCRs BCRs are classified into two types: (1) BCRs for Controllers (BCR-C) and (2) BCRs for Processors (BCR-P). The category must be clearly specified when submitting the BCRs to the PDPC Office. Documentation Requirement The applicant must prepare and submit the application (a standard template may be provided by the PDPC Office in the future) along with supporting documents for review and certification in the Thai language. If the supporting documents are in a foreign language, a certified Thai translation should be provided. The translation must be notarized by a notary public or qualified person. Supporting documents may include, among others, a binding instrument such as an intra-group agreement, or a list of entities subject to the BCRs. Expedited Process Requirement Organizations with existing BCR approvals under the EU or UK GDPR, or from countries announced by the PDPC under Section 28, may apply through an
Read More
October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
Read More
October 30, 2025
Thailand has introduced a comprehensive overhaul of its tax litigation procedures that will significantly impact how tax disputes are handled. The Regulations for Tax Cases B.E. 2568 (2025) take effect on November 24, 2025, and repeal the prior B.E. 2544 (2001) regulations in full. These regulations support the implementation of the Act on the Establishment of the Tax Court and Tax Case Procedure (No. 3) B.E. 2568 (2025), which expands the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to certain criminal tax matters. Published in the Government Gazette on October 14, 2025, the regulations have been reorganized into three parts covering civil cases, criminal cases, and forms, and are designed to accelerate proceedings, tighten evidentiary discipline, and modernize court operations. Structural Reform and Scope The prior regime governed only civil tax disputes. Under the new framework, the regulations introduce a dedicated chapter for criminal cases alongside updated civil procedures, as the Tax Court now has express authority to adjudicate specified criminal tax offenses. Select mechanisms applied in civil case proceedings, such as electronic communication, recording testimony, and appointing experts, also apply to criminal proceedings mutatis mutandis where they do not conflict with criminal procedure. Civil Cases: Evidence Submission, Deadlines, and Scheduling Parties must submit, together with the witness list, originals of all documentary evidence, media, or electronic data (such as files, USB drives, or CDs), and all physical evidence in the party’s possession. Failure to submit any original within the deadline (see below) results in a loss of the right to adduce that item at trial, subject only to narrow exceptions where submission is impossible due to force majeure or where receipt of the evidence is indispensable to the interests of justice. The practical impact is that parties are now obligated to assemble and verify all original documents and data at the very
Read More
October 24, 2025
The Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), a division of Thailand’s Office of the Judiciary, has taken a step toward harmonizing the tools available for dispute resolution. On August 8, 2025, the institute formally launched the TAI Mediation Center (TAI-MC). Although the amendments to TAI’s Arbitration Rules that will govern the TAI-MC have not yet been finalized, the framework now under consideration suggests that TAI is positioning itself to become a more attractive venue for commercial dispute resolution. In the regime contemplated under the current version of the amendments, TAI proceedings will adopt an “arbitration-annexed mediation” mechanism—commonly termed the “Med-Arb” model—while preserving the procedural safeguards indispensable to arbitral neutrality. Mediation will be entrusted to a separate, dedicated mediator appointed under the TAI-MC who is precluded from serving on the arbitral tribunal in the same matter. By clearly separating the functions of mediator and arbitrator, the institute eliminates any risk that confidential information disclosed during mediation could influence the adjudicatory outcome if the parties do not settle. Only when all parties subsequently make a request may that same mediator assume arbitral duties in the case. The parties will retain substantial autonomy in selecting the mediator. They may either designate a mediator by mutual consent or invite the TAI-MC to appoint one from its authorized panel. TAI has announced its intention to curate that panel with particular emphasis on commercial expertise and cross-cultural negotiation skills, supplemented by ongoing professional training. Where the parties cannot agree on remuneration, the mediator’s fee will default to a tariff comparable to the TAI-MC’s cost schedule, which under the current version of the amendments will be approximately THB 45,000 for disputes in which the aggregate claims do not exceed THB 10 million, with incremental increases tied to higher claim values. This predictable cost matrix is aimed at enhancing
Read More