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​ 

September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
Read More
June 25, 2025
In Thailand, in-court business rehabilitation is a legal proceeding that enhances a debtor’s chance to restructure business operations for corporate debtors who are unable to repay their debts. The purpose of this proceeding is to allow the debtor to continue operating the business and generate income to repay creditors. The amounts that creditors receive in the rehabilitation proceeding are greater than the amounts creditors would receive if the debtor went bankrupt. The law is not designed to allow debtors or creditors to use the business rehabilitation process in bad faith for their benefit or to defraud another party. Accordingly, the Business Rehabilitation Law, which is included in the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), provides criminal liability for actions taken before or during the process. This article addresses the key points regarding criminal liability for safeguarding debtors and creditors in business rehabilitation proceedings from any parties who act in bad faith. Criminal Liability in Business Rehabilitation The following provisions establish the framework for criminal liability in business rehabilitation cases, ensuring that all parties act with integrity throughout the process. The Bankruptcy Act of Thailand B.E. 2483 (1940) provides the relevant provisions regarding the business rehabilitation process. Additionally, if a company debtor or its authorized directors are found to have committed fraud or malfeasance under the Bankruptcy Act, they can also be held criminally liable under the Penal Code or related criminal statutes. The rehabilitation process aims to help a business recover financially under the supervision of the court. When the court approves the rehabilitation plan, the court appoints a business rehabilitation plan administrator to manage and implement the process. However, if it is discovered that the debtor, its executives, or even the plan administrator engaged in illegal activities prior to or during the rehabilitation process—such as tax evasion, embezzlement,
Read More