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​ 

January 29, 2026
Following the recent enactment of a comprehensive legal framework addressing sexual harassment, Thailand has launched a fast-track judicial process enabling victims of online sexual harassment to obtain court orders suspending and removing obscene content from the internet. On January 26, 2026, the Office of the Judiciary introduced the “Take It Down” procedure through the Court Integral Online Service (CIOS) platform, providing victims with their first direct, expedited pathway to halt the spread of online content that violates the new legal provisions against sexual harassment. This new remedy stems from section 284/4 of the Penal Code, introduced through the Act Amending the Penal Code (No. 30) B.E. 2568, which took effect on December 30, 2025. Under section 284/4, an injured person or a competent official may petition the court to suspend dissemination of violating data and remove the data from computer systems within a court-specified period. The court may also direct system controllers, service providers, or competent authorities to carry out the order and report back within 15 days. Filing through the CIOS Platform The CIOS platform serves as the primary electronic channel for these petitions. Key features include: Individuals can file online without appearing in person and may submit petitions at any time the system is available. Users must complete digital identity verification via the ThaID application to access the CIOS. Petitions under section 284/4 are limited to requests to suspend or remove violating content. Claims for monetary damages must be pursued separately, including via separate proceedings or prefiling mediation. Streamlined Review Process The submission workflow is end-to-end electronic, and the system provides step-by-step guidance. After submission, court staff review the petition before presenting it to a judge for consideration. The court may conduct an online inquiry to obtain additional information, and in-person attendance is required only if deemed
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 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
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More