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

April 18, 2024

In-Court Arbitration in Thailand: A Tool Worth Exploring?

Subscribe to Updates

In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice.

The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial.

This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by the CPC, not the Arbitration Act. At most, for in-court arbitration, the Arbitration Act could only be used to assist with the interpretation of the CPC provisions regarding the in-court proceedings. But even this narrow use would most likely be limited.

As discussed, in more detail below, there are two primary issues of which a party considering in-court arbitration should be aware: (1) The award from the in-court arbitration proceedings will be a part of the Thai court’s judgment; and (2) The court will play a greater role with respect to the issues or cases that are handled by in-court arbitration than the court would play in an out-of-court arbitration. One effect of this is that the freedom of the parties to tailor the in-court arbitration process is more limited than it would be with out-of-court arbitration.

  1. Section 218 of the CPC provides that an award rendered by an in-court arbitrator is an award to be decided by the court and is considered as part of the court’s judgment. Before rendering judgment, the court will review the award and decide whether to render its judgment in accordance with that award. If the award contains content that is contrary to the law, the court has the discretion to not to render a judgment according to the award. The court also has the discretion to have the arbitrator or the parties to the case revise or edit the award. Furthermore, in-court arbitration could be chosen for the entire case, or only for certain issues of the case and have the remaining issues of the case determined by judges. Regardless of whether in-court arbitration applies to the entire case or only to certain issues, the case remains categorized as a case that is litigated before the court. Regardless of whether the court decides to issue a judgment in accordance with the award or whether it exercises its discretion not to, the parties are generally barred from appealing this decision, except for the limited circumstances provided in section 222 of the CPC, which include allegations that the arbitrators did not act in good faith, that either party committed fraud, that such order or judgment is against public order or that the judgment is not compliance with the award. Finally, when the in-court arbitration award is rendered as a judgment of the court, it is not considered an “award” as provided in the Arbitration Act. Further, it is arguably not enforceable under the New York Convention.
  2. With in-court arbitration, the court remains closely involved in the arbitration process although the arbitrator is primarily responsible for the issues assigned to him/her. Under the CPC, the parties are specifically allowed to agree on only four main issues with respect to the proceedings: (1) the arbitration clause; (2) the number of arbitrators and their voting rights in rendering the award; (3) arbitrators’ fees; and (4) the termination or end of the arbitration proceedings due to the failure to appoint arbitrators. Aside from these four issues specifically set out in the CPC, it is unclear whether a court would allow the parties to agree on other aspects of the in-court arbitration proceedings and to what extent. This area has yet to be explored. In contrast, under the Arbitration Act, the parties in out-of-court arbitration proceedings have a great deal of flexibility in tailoring the proceedings to their preferences. The CPC does not mention anything with respect to in-court arbitration proceedings as ad hoc arbitration or through an institution of choice. Neither does it stipulate any qualifications of arbitrators. However, it does allow the court to order the parties to choose a different arbitrator if it does not agree with their choice. If the parties do not nominate a new arbitrator, the court may appoint one as it sees fit. Further, the grounds for objecting to an arbitrator are limited under the CPC, which refers to the list of grounds for challenges to judges under section 11 of the CPC. This list of potential grounds is narrower than those provided under the Arbitration Act for challenging arbitrators in out-of-court proceedings.

In conclusion, in-court arbitration provides parties with the opportunity to have their case litigated in court (as opposed to having the whole proceedings take place outside of the court system) but have a person other than the judge decide on some or all of the issues in the case. Parties to in-court arbitration proceedings can expect to see greater involvement from the court than they would see from an arbitrator in out-of-court proceedings, as the parties lack the independence to agree on matters such as arbitration institution, place of the proceedings, flexibility of the proceedings, or inclusion of additional grounds to object to an arbitrator. The parties should also consider that as the award is rendered as part of the court’s judgment, the award therefore may not be enforced in other countries.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More