Thai Courts Adjust Case Management Procedures for the COVID-19 Crisis

May 21, 2020

Thai Courts Adjust Case Management Procedures for the COVID-19 Crisis

The Thai judiciary has issued multiple measures and guidelines for case management during the COVID-19 outbreak. The latest came in May 2020, when the president of the Supreme Court issued further details and guidance on the handling of cases during the COVID-19 outbreak in an official announcement titled Measures for Case Management according to the Declaration of an Emergency Situation between March 26, 2020, and April 30, 2020, in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand.

This announcement generally confirmed and extended previous guidelines issued to provide direction on the management of cases in the Thai judicial system. The Thai judiciary first responded to the crisis on March 24, 2020, when they announced postponement of various hearings and set forth guidelines for relevant parties. The president of the Supreme Court gave greater details in measures issued on April 2, and on April 23, 2020, the newly formed Sub-Committee for Education, Follow-Up and Finding Solutions for Case Management during the COVID-19 Outbreak issued further guidelines regarding the management and postponement of cases between May 1 and May 30, 2020. This article discusses the items detailed in these measures.

Scheduling of Postponed and New Hearings

According to the April 23 guidelines, parties to cases with hearings that are postponed to June 1–30, 2020, should coordinate with the relevant court officer by submitting a signed confirmation of the new hearing date by mail, electronic media, or other method. In instances where the officer is unable to contact or otherwise coordinate with a party, the officer will send a summons by registered mail with a receipt.

Specific Procedural Contingencies

The sub-committee’s April 23 guidelines also detail how to handle some specific circumstances that may arise by grouping cases into three different categories. The first, “special management cases,” covers those which involve uncomplicated civil matters that can be completed relatively quickly (such as cases with no answer, or highly specific complaints that can be simply enforced), as well as criminal cases in the preliminary hearing stage and in which the plaintiff is a Thai citizen. The second category is “general cases,” which includes more complicated civil cases, such as where the defendant has responded denying the complaint; prima facie criminal cases; and criminal cases in which the prosecutor is the plaintiff. The third category is “special general cases,” which are general cases with an especially significant amount of evidence requiring extended consideration.

Criminal special management cases that can proceed in court include witness examination hearings where the defendant pleads guilty, and evidence inspection hearings where the defendant is detained in custody. However, the court will have to consider the number of cases, the people involved, and the robustness of the videoconferencing system connecting the court and the prison or other detention center, in accordance with the Judicial Regulation on the Procedure of Criminal Cases.

As for civil special management cases that can proceed in court, these include matters such as probate hearings, hearings to declare a person disappeared, hearings to appoint guardians for a juvenile, and other cases where the judge believes postponement would result in damage to the parties. The court will also need to exercise discretion regarding the safety of relevant people, whether postponement would be a viable alternative, and each party’s consent.

For special management cases, newly filed complaints will be scheduled for August–September 2020, depending on the number of cases, and are to be scheduled after the postponed hearings of April and May 2020. The relevant court officer will send the necessary summons, to inform parties of the scheduled hearings, by registered mail requiring a receipt.

General cases and special general cases that can proceed include hearings in criminal cases where the defendant is in custody, hearings in which a party is ready to present witnesses, hearings where the judge believes that the safety of the relevant persons will not be impacted, and hearings where the judge believes postponement would result in damage to either or both parties. Here again, the parties’ consent will be taken into consideration.

An example of a general or special general case requiring judicial discretion would be a hearing in which there is only one witness left to present. The judge will consider circumstances such as the potential impact of postponement, or of proceeding without delay, and may choose whether to postpone any hearings scheduled to be held between May 1 and May 30, 2020, with approval from the chief justice or chief judge.

For judgment hearings in criminal cases that were held between May 1 and May 30, 2020, the judgment will be read as scheduled, regardless of whether all defendants have been granted temporary release or remain in custody. However, if the judge believes the hearing will not be safe for those involved, the judge may use his or her discretion in choosing whether to postpone the judgement hearings. Also in criminal cases, any review to consider granting temporary release will be carried out in accordance with the April 2 case management guidelines issued by the president of the Supreme Court.

Judgment hearings scheduled to be held between May 1 and May 30, 2020, will likewise be held according to the further details and guidance provided by the president of the Supreme Court in the measures announced on April 2. These guidelines also apply to cases where the judge needs to review petitions for extension of a deadline to submit an appeal (or final appeal) that falls between May 1 and May 30, 2020.

Staying the Course

The COVID-19 outbreak has been an obstacle to the smooth continuation of judicial proceedings in Thailand, but the courts have shown that they have the resources and adaptability to handle the extraordinary circumstances. While the impacts of this unprecedented situation reverberate through the economic, social, and business spheres, it is important that companies and other parties to litigation or judicial actions maintain a steady strategy, adapting where needed and standing firm when circumstance allow. To ensure that the most effective and economical choices are being taken at this time, businesses should consult with their legal counsel before choosing a course of action regarding ongoing or upcoming litigation.

Download Full Article

Related Professionals

Kasamesunt Teerasitsathaporn

Partner

Thailand

+66 2056 5555

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

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

April 11, 2024

Litigation Funding in Thailand

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

April 4, 2024

Thailand’s Criminal Court Establishes Cybercrime Division

On March 18, 2024, the president of the Supreme Court of Thailand announced the establishment of a specialized Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court of Thailand. This represents a significant commitment to cybercrime within the Thai judiciary and a step forward in Thailand’s ability to investigate cybercrime. The rise in cybercrime investigations in recent years has made it increasingly difficult for Thailand’s traditional criminal courts to consider and issue enforcement orders in support of ongoing investigations in a timely manner. The new Technology Crime Division addresses this challenge. This new division has jurisdiction over cybercrime and technology-related crime, fraud or extortion using computers, and criminal offenses relating to personal data protection laws. In addition, this new division has jurisdiction over all requests from competent law enforcement officers seeking court orders under the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550, the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562, and the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562. The Technology Crime Division will have trainees and judges with expertise in technology and cybercrime—not only to facilitate expert prosecution of cybercrime but also to offer critical and time-sensitive support to law enforcement investigations of alleged cybercrime. The Technology Crime Division is not yet operational. The president of the Supreme Court is expected to announce the division’s opening date in the coming months. For more details on Thailand’s measures for dealing with cybercrime, please contact Michael Ramirez at [email protected] or Piyawat Vitooraporn at [email protected].

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 21, 2020