Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act. Thailand’s Overall Approach Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law. Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds. Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion. In practical

As Thailand transitions into an aged society, retirement policy and workplace protections for older workers have come into sharper focus. With public sentiment increasingly open to working beyond the traditional retirement age, questions about employee rights and employer obligations are more relevant than ever. In October 2025, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul proposed increasing the statutory retirement age to 65 for government officers, citing Thailand’s aged-society status and the potential social and economic benefits of longer working lives. While academics and stakeholders have raised concerns about systemic impacts, public opinion remains divided, with many workers signaling a willingness to continue working beyond the current norm. Against this backdrop, it’s worth revisiting what the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA) requires in regard to retirement and severance pay. This article explains the current legal landscape under the LPA, with a focus on retirement and severance pay for employees over 60, recent judicial developments, and practical options for structuring postretirement engagements. Retirement as Termination Under the LPA Under the LPA, retirement—whether set by agreement between employer and employee or unilaterally stipulated by the employer—is deemed a termination of employment. As a result, employees who retire under such terms are entitled to severance pay. The law also adds a default rule: if there is no agreed or prescribed retirement age, or if the prescribed retirement age exceeds 60, an employee aged 60 or older may declare an intention to retire. The declaration takes effect 30 days after notice, and the employer must pay severance accordingly. In short, retirement triggered by agreement, the employer’s work rules, or an employee’s valid notice is treated as a termination, and statutory severance pay is owed. Hiring or Rehiring Employees Over 60 Practical issues arise when an employer’s work rules set a retirement age that does not

One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations

Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create