Thailand ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards on December 21, 1959, with the Convention coming into force on March 20, 1960. This ratification was a significant step in aligning Thailand’s arbitration framework with international standards, facilitating the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the country. In Thailand, the enforcement of both domestic and international arbitral awards is governed by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), which is based on the first version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 (as opposed to the latest version from 2006). However, unlike Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore, Thailand is not an UNCITRAL Model Law country. While Thailand’s Arbitration Act is influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law, it incorporates certain local contexts that require interpretation alongside Thai court rulings. The Arbitration Act also confirms the authority of arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures, reinforcing tribunals’ power in managing disputes effectively. Additionally, the act incorporates principles from the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). This article explores the key procedural steps, timeframes, and practical challenges associated with the enforcement of arbitral awards under Thailand’s legal framework. Procedures for Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Thailand The enforcement of arbitral awards in Thailand follows the procedures outlined in the Arbitration Act: Application to the competent court: Under the Arbitration Act, parties seeking enforcement must submit a petition to the Thai courts within three years of the award having become enforceable. The application must include the original or certified copies of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement, along with translations if necessary. In Thailand, the choice of court for filing the arbitral award depends on the nature of the disputed contract. If the contract concerns

A proposal to establish a specialized Intellectual Property Court in Vietnam has been a topic of significant interest among IP practitioners for the past 20 years. It was thus a major breakthrough when the new Law on the Organization of People’s Courts was ratified in 2024, stipulating in Article 4.1(dd) that the Vietnamese court system would include a specialized first-instance IP Court. The new law took effect on January 1, 2025, replacing the Law on the Organization of People’s Courts of 2014, A groundbreaking law This breakthrough can be viewed from multiple perspectives. First of all, in terms of organization, this is the first time, after numerous considerations, that Vietnam has officially recognized the importance of the IP field and the need to establish a specialized adjudicative body due to the field’s unique nature. The establishment of a specialized first-instance IP Court is expected to lead to fundamental changes in the practice of developing and applying IP law. While the establishment of IP rights such as trademarks, patents, and plant varieties is managed by administrative agencies such as the Intellectual Property Office, the Copyright Office, and the Crop Production Department, which seem unlikely to change their functions and tasks, there could be significant changes in the enforcement of these rights, which has been a persistent issue in Vietnam’s IP law system. Thus far, in practice, the enforcement of IP rights in Vietnam has relied overwhelmingly on administrative measures over civil measures. Civil measures, typically involving court proceedings under which the matter will be submitted to a court for settlement, are not appealing to disputing parties, especially IP rights owners. The absence of a specialized court has led to many IP cases being handled by judges without any knowledge or experience in this specialized field, resulting in confusion, misconceptions about

Thailand has adopted the OECD’s global minimum tax framework through the Emergency Decree on Top-Up Tax B.E. 2567 (2024). Published in the Government Gazette on December 26, 2024, this legislation implements a 15% global minimum effective tax rate for large multinational enterprise (MNE) groups. The emergency decree took effect on January 1, 2025. The emergency decree was enacted through expedited procedures to implement “pillar two” of the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 project’s Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) Rules. This swift implementation ensures Thailand can collect relevant tax revenues and prevents potential revenue losses from MNEs that might otherwise shift profits to jurisdictions with lower tax rates or to countries that have already implemented similar top-up tax legislation. Key aspects of Thailand’s implementation of the global minimum tax through the emergency decree are described below. Top-Up Tax The emergency decree introduces a dual mechanism for collecting additional top-up tax from MNEs whose effective tax rate falls below 15%. The first mechanism is a domestic top-up tax that targets MNEs operating within Thailand when their local effective tax rate is lower than 15%. The second mechanism is the income inclusion rule, which determines when a company’s foreign income should be included in the parent (main) company’s taxable income. This rule applies to Thai-based entities—including ultimate parent entities (UPE), intermediate parent entities, and partially owned parent entities—that hold ownership stakes in low-tax foreign jurisdictions. Scope MNEs subject to Thailand’s implementation of the global minimum tax framework are defined in the emergency decree as those whose UPEs report consolidated revenue of at least EUR 750 million (approximately THB 28 billion) in at least two of the four accounting periods preceding the relevant fiscal year. Reporting and Payment In-scope MNEs must comply with specific reporting obligations to the Thai Revenue Department. The filing deadline is set

Litigation is usually the last resort in resolving disputes. Most parties to a dispute try to avoid litigation altogether, fearing that seeking recourse with the courts or arbitration will lead to a disruption in commercial relationships, result in increased legal expenses, and generally lengthen the period in which the dispute remains unresolved. While some of these concerns may indeed be legitimate, sometimes litigation is the only means for a party to obtain relief. For parties contemplating such recourse, it is reassuring to know that the Thai court system is generally an accessible, unbiased, and balanced vehicle for the resolution of disputes. Civil Litigation in Thailand aims to introduce some of the fundamentals of Thai civil court procedures and practices. This brief guide covers the main issues concerning civil litigation in Thailand as either a plaintiff or a defendant. Tilleke & Gibbins also publishes a similar guide for Vietnam. The full guide is available through the button below.