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

March 25, 2020

Thai Judicial Authorities Announce Hearing Postponements amid COVID19 Outbreak

Subscribe to Updates

In an effort to help stem the COVID 19 virus outbreak in Thailand, the nation’s chief judicial authorities have ordered the postponement of most court hearings until the end of May 2020. In a resolution issued by the Judicial Administrative Commission (JAC) and an announcement by the President of the Supreme Court (the “Announcement”), all courts of first instance (i.e. trial-level courts) must set new dates for hearings that are currently scheduled between March 24 and May 31. 

Exceptions 

There are exceptions to the postponement requirement, including the following:

  • Witness examination hearings in criminal cases where the defendant pleads guilty or the defendant is in the court’s custody (without bail)
  • Evidence inspection hearings in criminal cases
  • Probate hearings
  • Hearings for declaring a person disappeared
  • Hearings to appoint guardians for a juvenile  
  • The Announcement also allows a judge to keep a hearing at its scheduled date if the parties consent and a postponement would result in damages to the parties. With that in mind, if the judge is of the opinion that holding the hearing would jeopardize health and safety, or if the number of attendees at the hearing is high, the judge has the full authority to not conduct the hearing.  

For practical purposes, litigants should check with the court to confirm if their hearing has been rescheduled. 

Appellate Courts 

Although the Announcement only mentions hearings scheduled by courts of first instance, in practice, appellate-level hearings would also be rescheduled. Under the Thai system, the Appeal Court and Supreme Court do not carry out their own hearings. Instead, the courts of first instance conduct the hearings, but only as ordered by the appellate court. For example, an Appeal Court or Supreme Court judgment would be read by the court of first instance in the case. As a result, these hearings would be postponed. 

Foreign Parties/Witnesses

At present, due to the COVID-19 situation, foreigners attempting to enter Thailand must have a medical certificate issued no more than 72 hours before travelling which confirms they have been tested and are free from the virus. Foreigners must also present an insurance policy showing minimum coverage for COVID-19 of not less than US$100,000. In practice, it is difficult for a foreigner to obtain such clearance, making appearances at Thai court hearings virtually impossible. Under the Announcement, however, it is much easier to postpone a hearing with foreign witnesses, saving the foreign party the challenge of traveling to Thailand at this difficult time. However, in case of emergency, the parties can ask the court to allow the witness to appear through video conference. Whether or not such a measure would be allowed is solely at the court’s discretion. 

Court Filings 

The Announcement only covers hearings. As such, all prescription periods (statutes of limitation) are still in effect. The complaint department is still operating, so parties must still file their complaints, and other court submissions, by the required deadlines. However, as the situation is fluid, this may change. We will keep our readers updated on all developments regarding the Thai courts and justice system in this extraordinary time. 

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 25, 2025
In the Thailand contribution to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, four members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok labor and employment team outline key aspects of dispute resolution in Thailand. Their analysis, part of Lexology Panoramic’s comparative guide covering jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the following areas: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The complete Thailand chapter can be downloaded below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
September 25, 2025
Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Phnom Penh have authored the Cambodia chapter of Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, the latest edition of Lexology Panoramic’s global guide to handling labor and employment disputes. The chapter provides practical insights on a wide range of dispute resolution issues, including: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The full Cambodia chapter is available for download below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
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