Thailand Certifies First Class Action

February 27, 2018

Thailand Certifies First Class Action

In what is thought to be the first order certifying a class under Thailand’s recently enacted class action legislation, the Act to Amend the Civil Procedure Code (Number 26) B.E. 2558 (the “Act”), the Civil Court in Bangkok has issued an order in case Black No.SorWor.4/2560 against Wax Garbage Recycle Center Co., Ltd. and others, granting the lead plaintiffs’ request for the case to proceed as a class action.

The case was brought against an industrial waste recycling operator in Ratchaburi province, claiming personal injury, property damage, and agricultural business interruption losses arising from alleged environmental breaches. Three lead plaintiffs claimed to represent a class of a village containing over 100 households, represented by Mr. Somchai Armeen, president of the Legal Right and Environmental Protection Association (LEPA).

In its order, the court did not give any detailed consideration to the five tests for certification set down in Section 222/12 of the Amended Code, but in a reference to the language of that section, made a broad finding that it was satisfied that if the proceeding was to be undertaken as an ordinary case it would cause an inconvenience, and that the background and experience of the three lead plaintiffs and their lawyer were sufficient to adequately and fairly protect the rights of the group.

The order certifying the class defines group members briefly as “persons having domicile and occupation in the area […] during the period of 2001 to 2017,” potentially giving rise to a large class of members as well as disputes over interpretation.

The certification order was not appealed by the defendants and has now become final. The court must now make a public announcement of the order, which must be published for three consecutive days in daily newspapers and other media, and which must contain a summary of the complaint, details of the certification order and the definition of the class, information on the rights of class members, and a specified period of not less than 45 days for class members to opt out. The case will then proceed to trial on liability and quantum in accordance with the case management procedures set down in the Act.

Background and Comment

The Act came into effect in December 2015. Modelled primarily on the U.S. class action regime, the Act amended the Thai Civil Procedure Code to implement a fully-fledged opt-out class action procedure for the first time in Thailand.

Significantly, unlike some other jurisdictions which have implemented class action or collective redress regimes in recent years, the Act does not limit the application of the procedure to certain narrow fields of law, or require the involvement of consumer protection agencies or other representative bodies to initiate proceedings. The mechanism is available to any lead plaintiff and their attorney for a wide range of claims for legal redress, which may be based on general tort or breach of contract principles, or other laws including those relating to environmental protection, consumer protection, labor, securities and stock exchange, and trade competition. The Act is therefore of potentially very broad application.

The Act has been somewhat slow to take off, but other actions currently pending certification include a similar claim for environmental damages against the Australian operators of a gold mine in central Thailand, (also the subject of a bilateral investment treaty arbitration with the Thai Government), a claim for false advertising on behalf of potentially 500,000 purchasers of imported frying pans, and a class action suit against Ford Motor Company that was apparently closely modelled on similar proceedings in Australia.

The court’s apparently broad-brush approach to applying the certification test in this case may now well encourage further suits to be filed. However, the real test of whether Thailand’s nascent class actions industry will take off will come when the courts’ approach to costs awards becomes known. The Act empowers the courts to make an award of costs to successful plaintiffs’ attorneys of up to 30 percent of the damages awarded, which are to be paid by defendants in addition to damages, rather than deducted from class members’ compensation. If the courts show a willingness to make costs awards at or near these levels, Thailand may very well follow in the steps of the United States and Australia to become the Asia Pacific’s leading consumer litigation destination. In the meantime the risks are escalating and international operators and their insurers should continue to monitor the situation.

Related Professionals

Aaron Le Marquer

Partner and Deputy Director, Dispute Resolution

Thailand

+66 2056 5555

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

December 22, 2022

Overview of Franchising in Indonesia

Rules for franchising in Indonesia were first published in 1997 through a government regulation and a ministerial decree, which was subsequently amended several times. The franchising regulations currently in effect are Government Regulation No. 42 of 2007 concerning Franchises and Regulation issued by the Minister of Trade No. 71 of 2019 concerning the Implementation of Franchising (MOT No. 71 of 2019). Franchises in Indonesia must meet certain criteria that distinguish them from other types of businesses, and franchising must be based on a franchise agreement governed by Indonesian law. Prior to entering into a franchise agreement, a franchisor must provide a prospectus (disclosure document) to the prospective franchisee at least two weeks before the execution of the franchise agreement so that the prospective franchisee has sufficient time to review the reputation and goodwill of the franchisor through the prospectus. The prospectus must contain various details about the franchise business, its management, its operations, and other relevant aspects. Both local and foreign franchisors must obtain a franchise registration certificate—referred to as an STPW—from the Ministry of Trade before offering their franchises to prospective franchisees. The franchisee is also required to obtain an STPW. The STPW for the franchisor is the proof of prospectus registration, while the STPW for the franchisee is the proof of registration of the franchise agreement. Franchisors and franchisees who have STPWs are required to submit reports on franchise business activities to the Ministry of Trade’s director of business development and distribution by the end of June each year. Up to three written warnings will be served on a franchisor or franchisee who does not comply with the registration requirements. A fine of up to IDR 100 million (approx. USD 6,400) will be imposed if the franchisor or franchisee fails to respond to the warnings. MOT No.

December 19, 2022

Thailand’s Draft Liability for Defective Goods Act Advances in Legislative Process

On November 22, 2022, the Thai cabinet approved in principle the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act (the “Bill”) proposed by the Office of the Consumer Protection Board. While Thailand’s Product Liability Act B.E. 2551 (2008) deals with liability to consumers arising from unsafe products, the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act aims to ensure that consumers are well protected from defects in appliances and vehicles that might not initially be easily visible or noticed. Key Definitions The Bill applies most notably to business operators and consumers. In the Bill, a “business operator” who may potentially be liable is: a manufacturer (or its hirer) of goods for sale; or a consignee or importer who brings goods into Thailand for sale; or a seller or a hire purchase provider who cannot identify the manufacturer (or its hirer) or the importer. As opposed to the Product Liability Act, which clearly provides that all business operators in the supply chain must be jointly liable, the Bill lacks such clear guidance. This could be interpreted as meaning that under the current Bill only the business operator at the top of the supply chain who is sued in the same case as other business operators is responsible. A “consumer” is defined as a purchaser or hirer of goods from a manufacturer, including an assignee or successor of the goods from the purchaser or hirer. Scope and Application The Bill is intended to govern purchase or hire-purchase contracts for: electric appliances; electronic devices; personal cars and motorcycles; other goods that may be set out in a future royal decree issued under the act. The Bill will not apply to any purchase or hire purchase of used products or as-is products when this is clearly stated by the seller or hire-purchase provider or the auctioneer in

November 29, 2022

Cambodia: Commercial Advertising Sub-Decree Mandates Khmer Language and Establishes Other Restrictions

Cambodia’s new Sub-Decree on the Management of Commercial Advertising of Products and Services, issued November 4, 2022, is a notable step in ensuring that advertisers comply with advertising regulations, advertise ethically and legally, and avoid deceiving or misleading consumers. The sub-decree regulates both traditional advertising (e.g., print, broadcast, display, etc.) and digital forms (e.g., social media, online, mobile, etc.), and also includes provisions that address advertising alongside rewards—a popular method of advertising in Cambodia. The Ministry of Commerce is the authority tasked with issuing certificates of advertising compliance (more below) and is responsible for monitoring and assessing the compliance of advertisements with this sub-decree and related regulations. The ministry also enforces against unfair advertising through its Consumer Protection, Competition and Fraud Repression Directorate-General (CCF). Key Issues The sub-decree addresses a range of key issues relevant to companies advertising products and services in Cambodia. Licensing The sub-decree does not appear to set new licensing or permit requirements, but it requires advertisements for products and services to comply with the sub-decree, any existing regulations (unless they contradict the sub-decree), and future regulations. If regulations require a license for advertising, this should be obtained from the relevant authorities. One example is advertising of pharmaceuticals, which requires a license from the Ministry of Health under existing regulations. Types of Advertisement Under the sub-decree, advertising is divided into two types: advertisements with rewards and advertisement without rewards. Rewards may include souvenirs, lucky draws, and other rewards attached to the purchase of products and services. Forms of Advertisement Forms and means of advertising specified in the sub-regulation include the following: Advertising via audiovisual media such as TV, electronic broadcasting media (including both satellite and cable TV), and so on; Electronic advertising, such as websites, e-mail, electronic messages (in written, voice, or image form), ringtones, social

October 3, 2022

Unsafe Products: Liability under Thailand’s Product Liability Law

Impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic have led some manufacturers to reduce costs by changing production methods, designs, or machinery, or reducing the number of employees on payroll. While these strategies may reduce costs and help their business survive, they may also result to lower quality goods. In the worst case, however, these poor quality goods may cancel out or even outweigh a manufacturer’s cost savings if the products are deemed to be unsafe for consumers under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (officially the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act). The Product Liability Act has been in force for 14 years. However, there have been few landmark Supreme Court decisions related to it as most cases are settled before the final judgment. Consequently, most business owners have limited knowledge of the precedent cases and are unsure about what actions they can take to manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for claims of damages due to an unsafe product. The Product Liability Act identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators (individuals and entities) as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be penalized under the law: 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 of the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be seen as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer The Product Liability Act defines a “product” as any kind of movable property that has been manufactured or imported for sale—including agricultural products and electricity, but excluding those ruled out by ministerial regulations. Therefore, real estate and services are excluded from the Product Liability Act. However, real estate buyers are protected by the Civil and Commercial Code, and by the

Industries

Practices

February 27, 2018