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 28, 2023

Overview of Commercial Litigation in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Legal Business

Thailand’s legal system is based on European continental civil law systems, with a three-tier court system. Precedents set by the Thai Supreme Court are merely considered as examples of the application of laws and are not binding on Thai courts.

While the country’s judiciary and dispute resolution mechanisms are well developed, some aspects can be unfamiliar or even surprising to counsel unfamiliar with the Thai court system. This article introduces some of the Thai civil court procedures and practices, and covers several key issues it is important to understand regarding civil litigation in Thailand.

Offers of compromise or settlement

In Thailand, there is no such thing as an ‘offer without prejudice’. Anything put in writing can be used against the offering party. Therefore, compromises, settlements, and offers to compromise or settle should not be made before consulting with legal counsel. Similarly, parties at trial or anticipating litigation should be cautious in all communications with the opposing party.

Location of assets

Before initiating litigation, plaintiffs should investigate the nature and extent of the defendant’s assets in Thailand and abroad. A monetary judgment is of limited value if the defendant has little or no recoverable assets. Therefore, any information a claimant has on the opposing party should be assessed at the beginning of the case or as soon as is reasonably possible.

Language of documents

All documents submitted to a Thai court must be in the Thai language. Foreign documents must be the originals or certified copies, and certain documents also need to be notarised and then authenticated by a Thai consular official.

Court costs

A plaintiff must pay a court filing fee when submitting a case. This is usually 2% of the claim amount but will not exceed THB 200,000 per action for claims of up to THB 50 million. There is an additional 0.1% calculated on the amount of a claim exceeding the THB 50 million threshold. If the suit is successful, some of these advanced court costs are usually recoverable.

Additionally, non-resident plaintiffs may be required to deposit security with the court to insure against a potential award of court costs in favour of the defendant.

Appeals

In civil cases, appeals must be filed within one month of the judgment being read. Extensions may be granted at the court’s discretion if requested and reasonably justified.

At each level, the appealing party must deposit additional court costs of 2% of the judgment amount, with a maximum of THB 200,000 for claims of up to THB 50 million and an extra 0.1% calculated on claim amounts exceeding THB 50 million. The appealing party may also be required to post an additional guarantee to ensure its ability to cover judgment should the appeal be unsuccessful.

The Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court are not trial courts, and generally no new evidence may be introduced after the trial in the lower court is completed. Appeals at all levels are resolved through written pleadings and supporting documentation only. There is no live oral advocacy.

In 2015, Thailand changed its appeal system from a right-based system, which allows any party to appeal against the lower courts to the Supreme Court, to a permission-based system, where a judgment or an appellate court order is final unless an appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court. This change gave the Supreme Court the power to grant permission to file an appeal to the Supreme Court if it deems the question a significant matter worthy of a decision. Under this new discretionary system of review, only a minority of Supreme Court appeals are accepted by the Supreme Court.

Length of trials

Unless settled by compromise, civil litigation typically lasts between 12 and 18 months, counting from the initiation of action until a judgment by the court of first instance. Cases in the Courts of Appeal usually take an additional 18-24 months, with a similar period for appeals to the Supreme Court.

Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

Foreign judgments cannot be enforced in Thai courts. Thailand is not a party to any treaty or convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. As such, a creditor must bring a new lawsuit to the relevant Thai court to obtain satisfaction. This means that a foreign judgment creditor must file a court case against a Thai debtor in Thailand and submit the foreign court’s judgment as evidence. The Supreme Court has ruled that for a foreign judgment to be admitted as evidence, it must be a final, dispositive order.

Arbitration and alternative dispute resolution

Deciding whether to litigate or seek alternative dispute resolution is commonly an anticipatory decision made by the parties to a contract before a dispute exists. Parties either specifically elect mediation or arbitration uniquely tailored to their needs or leave the matter of dispute resolution to the responsible court.

Some key reasons for choosing arbitration over court litigation are flexibility and the ability to tailor how a party’s dispute would be resolved by selecting the arbitration rules and institute, the venue, and the number of arbitrators. Administrative costs and arbitrator fees are pretty reasonable at local institutes and may help decrease the overall cost of dispute resolution in Thailand.

Thailand has three arbitration institutes: the Thai Arbitration Institute of the Office of the Judiciary, the Thai Commercial Arbitration Institute of the Board of Trade, and the Thailand Arbitration Center under the Ministry of Justice.

Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards

In general, foreign arbitral awards are recognised in Thailand if they fall within the recognition of treaties, conventions, and international agreements to which Thailand is a party – and only to the extent that Thailand is committed to be bound by them. Thailand is a party to both the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 and the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1927. Awards brought under the auspices of the former are easier to enforce than under the latter. Foreign arbitral awards can be executed in Thailand without having to be relitigated, although enforcement does require the filing of an enforcement claim with the Thai court of jurisdiction for execution against a debtor’s assets.

 

This article was originally published in Disputes Yearbook 2023, a publication from The Legal 500’s Legal Business magazine.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 2, 2024
The Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) announced on April 19, 2024, that it has jointly set up an in-court arbitration pilot project with five courts in Thailand—namely, the Civil Court, Taling Chan Civil Court, Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, Samut Prakan Provincial Court, and Samut Prakan Khwaeng Court. The pilot project launched on May 1, 2024. Pilot Project This project is designed to encourage the parties in cases submitted to these courts to consider having parts of the case, or even the entire case, heard and determined by arbitrators under the Civil Procedural Code (CPC). The objective of the project is to provide faster and more efficient judicial services to the public by reducing the number of cases to be fully tried in the courts through providing an option for parties to engage in in-court arbitration. Still, the court remains largely involved in the process, as the court will consider the award in detail before determining whether to render a judgment in accordance with the award without any edits. Therefore, in-court arbitration favors parties who prefer to have a court judgment instead of an out-of-court arbitral award, which could lead to enforcement challenges under the Arbitration Act. Parties who participate in this pilot project will pay the TAI a fee for its administrative assistance and related services. The TAI will assist in setting up and facilitating meetings, witness hearings, and the necessary logistics pertaining to case files involving the arbitrators, the parties, and the court. After the arbitrators hear the case, the case files, including the witness statements, exhibits, and reports during the arbitration proceedings, are collected and sent back to the respective court along with the award. Under the pilot project, the arbitrators will issue awards within 30 days of the last day of the trial or
Read More
April 18, 2024
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
Read More
April 17, 2024
Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding
Read More
April 11, 2024
Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any
Read More