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

May 21, 2020

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

Subscribe to Updates

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

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
Read More
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
Read More
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
Read More
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
Read More