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​ 

January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 20, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has imposed new restrictions on foreign-majority shareholding and land ownership for companies in certain promoted activities. The changes took effect on September 1, 2025, but were not published in the Government Gazette until December 30, 2025, under Notification of the Board of Investment No. Sor. 7/2568 on the Amendment to List of Activities Eligible for Investment Promotion under Notification of the Board of Investment No. 9/2565, dated July 22, 2025. Foreign Land Ownership Restrictions Generally, foreign land ownership is one of the privileges granted to BOI-promoted companies, allowing them to own land to engage in the promoted activities. However, with these new restrictions, the BOI will no longer grant land-ownership privileges to foreign-majority-owned companies that conduct business activities in the following categories: Rolling, drawing, casting, or forging of nonferrous metals (category 5.4.9) Manufacturing of ferrous metal products or ferrous metal parts (category 5.4.11.2) Manufacturing of nonferrous metal products and/or nonferrous metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.4) Manufacturing of other metal products, including other metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.5) Manufacture of chemical products for industry (category 6.2) Manufacture of plastic products for industrial goods and parts (category 6.4.1) These restrictions do not apply to existing BOI-promoted companies that have at least three projects granted promotion under the same juristic person during the past 15 years (2011–2025) with total investment of at least THB 5 billion, excluding the cost of land and working capital. Foreign Shareholding Restrictions For companies to be eligible for BOI promotion in three other categories of business activities, at least 51% of the company’s registered capital must be held by Thai individual shareholders, unless the BOI-promoted activity is located within a special border economic zone as designated by the BOI. These three categories are: Manufacture of bags made of
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More