Thai Arbitration Institute Launches Pilot Project for In-Court Arbitration

May 2, 2024

Thai Arbitration Institute Launches Pilot Project for In-Court Arbitration

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 the date the closing statements are received, with the total timeframe for the TAI having an award issued set at 180 days from the date on which the latest arbitrator is appointed.

The TAI has noted that appropriate cases for the in-court arbitration pilot program would be civil disputes requiring expertise in complex legal or factual matters. Such cases would include, for example, disputes with a high claim value, medical malpractice, large construction disputes, liability for defects, patent disputes, international contract disputes, international logistics disputes, and cases that would require more than six months for court trial dates.

The benefits provided by in-court arbitration include having the case heard sooner, maintaining trade secrets and confidentiality, having experts in the relevant field decide on the issue, and retaining good relations among the parties.

Considerations

There are a number of key factors that a party should consider before agreeing to participate in the in-court arbitration pilot project:

Although the court may encourage the parties to agree not only to the arbitration clause but also to the arbitrator, it is still up to the parties themselves whether to agree to these terms. The court cannot force the parties into participating in the pilot project. This means the parties have the option of agreeing to in-court arbitration that does not fall within the scope of the pilot project, and are not limited to choosing only arbitrators from the court’s list. Parties can also agree to an in-court arbitration clause even if the court handling the dispute is not one of the five courts mentioned above.
Although it is possible that portions of the court fees could be returned after the court renders a judgment in accordance with the award, the parties should carefully consider the TAI fees and expenses before agreeing to in-court arbitration. These fees vary depending on the amount claimed and whether a single or multiple arbitrators are sought, as indicated in the table below.

If a case is complex, it may take more than 180 days to complete the in-court arbitration process. Therefore, the timeframe may be flexible in practice. This flexibility can potentially benefit the parties, as the additional time would allow the parties to present their cases well and would also provide the arbitrator with additional time to go through the details of the case thoroughly and to issue a well-drafted and well-reasoned award of high quality. While in-court arbitration may allow the parties to have a case decided more quickly than if the case proceeded through the usual civil trial process, it is also important to keep in mind that speed is not always the ultimate objective for the stakeholders.

For more information on the in-court arbitration pilot project, or on any aspect of arbitration or litigation in Thailand, please contact Suruswadee Jaimsuwan at [email protected] or Eric M. Meyer at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Suruswadee Jaimsuwan

Counsel

Thailand

+66 2056 5502

Email

Eric M. Meyer

Thailand

+66 2056 5797

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

May 16, 2024

Vietnam Issues New Decree on Administrative Sanctions in Industrial Property

On May 4, 2024, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 46/2024/ND-CP (“Decree 46”) amending and supplementing certain articles of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP dated August 29, 2013, on administrative sanctions in industrial property, as amended and supplemented in 2021 (“Decree 99”). Decree 46, which will come into force on July 1, 2024, is designed to bring Decree 99 in line with the amended IP Law of 2022. Some of the notable amendments of Decree 46 are discussed below. New Infringing Acts Decree 46 added the following new infringing acts subject to sanctions, which had not been set out in the former decree: Use of patents, utility solutions, layout designs, or industrial designs without paying compensation according to the provisions on temporary rights specified in Article 131 of the amended IP Law. Accepting a trademark license not in the form of a written contract in the case of using the licensed trademark on goods or packaging. Failure to notify clients of costs, charges, and fees related to procedures for establishing and protecting industrial property rights. Deceiving clients in the course of entering into and performing industrial property representative service contracts, but not to the extent of criminal prosecution, or forcing customers to enter into and perform industrial property representative service contracts. Although these acts are not common occurrences, it is nevertheless important to have clear regulations in order to ensure consistency with the amended IP Law and overcome difficulties and obstacles if such acts are committed in practice. Amendments and Supplements Decree 46 adopted amendments and supplements to main sanctions, additional sanctions, and remedial measures, specifically: The monetary fine imposed for violations against trade secrets is VND 50 million to VND 100 million (approx. USD 2,000 – USD 4,000), a large increase compared to the VND 5 million to VND 15

April 23, 2024

Civil Litigation in Thailand

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. The full guide is available through the button below.

April 18, 2024

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

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

April 17, 2024

Navigating Document Formality Challenges in Vietnam

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

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

Industries

Practices

May 2, 2024