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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

February 21, 2023
On December 28, 2022, the Ministry of Health of Laos issued Decision No. 3789/MOH on the Control of Hemp for Medication and Products (the “Decision”). The Decision approves the regulated cultivation, extraction, production, processing, storage, distribution, utilization, import-export, and transport of hemp. The Decision also authorizes the use of hemp and hemp-related products by the general population, although use of certain products is limited to those with medical prescriptions. Background In 2019, the Lao government established an ad hoc committee to consider the legalization of cannabis, as reported previously. The government permitted certain local companies to grow cannabis in specific zones under pilot programs, although it continued to strictly prohibit the use and commercialization, as well as consumption, of cannabis-related products, regardless of the level of psychoactive tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the products. Overview of the Decision The Decision was issued by the Ministry of Health (which led the ad hoc committee) and permits authorized companies to engage in certain activities involving the use of hemp and the consumption of hemp and hemp-related products. The Decision defines hemp (“porkeo” in Lao) as a “plant that belongs to the same family as ganja and bears the scientific name Cannabis Sativa L. (Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa) which is a subspecies of ganja (Cannabis Sativa L.).” This definition aims at differentiating hemp from the general definition of ganja or marijuana, which continues to be listed as a prohibited narcotic in Laos. The Law on Narcotics (2007) and the Penal Code (2017) still prohibit the production, trade and use of all types of cannabis. These laws will need to be amended to ensure that they are aligned with changes set out in the Decision.  Authorized Hemp Activities The Decision allows approved companies to engage in the cultivation, extraction, production, processing, storage,
February 9, 2023
Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance is drafting a circular on determining the origin of imported and exported goods. This circular, a draft version of which has been released for public comment (“Draft Circular”), consolidates prevailing regulations and guidelines on determining the origin of imported and exported goods that are stipulated in the following legal documents, which the Draft Circular would replace when it comes into effect: Circular No. 38/2018/TT-BTC dated April 20, 2018, of the Ministry of Finance regulating the determination of origin of imported and exported goods, as amended by Circular No. 62/2019/TT-BTC dated September 5, 2019, of the Ministry of Finance; Circular No. 47/2020/TT-BTC dated May 27, 2020, regulating the time to submit documents proving the origin of goods and form of the documents proving the origin of imported goods applied during the Covid-19 pandemic; and Circular No. 07/2021/TT-BTC dated January 25, 2021, regulating the time to submit documents proving the origin of imported goods under the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA). Generally speaking, the Draft Circular does not increase the administrative procedures for importers and exporters, but rather seeks to codify the recent practices implemented by the customs authorities. The Draft Circular focuses on providing comprehensive guidance for importing/exporting companies when carrying out administrative procedures to certify the origins of imported and exported goods to be in line with current trade practices and international commitments under new-generation free trade agreements. In particular, the Draft Circular supplements guidelines on declaring origins and submitting Certificates of Origin (C/Os) of imported goods under the EVFTA and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP). The Draft Circular also provides some new guidelines to facilitate exports (and imports) and overcome some obstacles and issues when implementing the prevailing regulations. For example, the submission of C/Os online, which was only applicable during the
January 31, 2023
Thailand has issued a regulation on advertising content—including language-related requirements—securing the right of consumers to clear and fair advertising. The Committee on Advertisement, a subcommittee of the Consumer Protection Board under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (the CPA), laid out the rules in Notification Re: Guidelines on Use of Advertisement Statements by Confirming Facts that are Difficult to Prove and Guidelines on Proof of Advertisement Statements B.E. 2565 (2022). The notification, which repeals and replaces two previous guidelines on the same subject matter, was published in the Government Gazette on January 13, 2023, and took effect the following day. Under the CPA, advertisements must not be false or exaggerative. If the Committee on Advertisement suspects an advertisement of breaching this restriction, the business operator may have to provide proof of the claims in their advertisement. This new notification clarifies the criteria for determining whether advertisements are false, exaggerative, or unfair to consumers, and also outlines the procedure and evidence for proof of the advertisement at issue. Mandated Content The notification requires that advertisements fulfill several requirements: Advertising statements must be in Thai; must be easily seen, heard, or read; and must not be misleading. If the advertisement is in a foreign language, the Thai translation must also be made available. The notification additionally sets detailed requirements for different types of advertisement media. The primary purpose of the advertisement must be to give consumers clear and sufficient understanding. For example, if an advertisement claims that services will be provided free, the services must not be conditional on any fees, so consumers understand correctly that they do not have to pay any fee for the services. Descriptions mentioned in advertisements—such as quantity, volume, size, number, or ingredients or elements—must reflect the actual products or services sold to the consumers.
January 16, 2023
The January–March 2023 issue of Asia Franchise & Business Opportunities magazine features an article by two franchising specialists in Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office. Written by Alan Adcock, partner, and Sher Hann Chua, consultant, the article provides a summary of the legislative developments of 2022 most relevant to franchisors and franchisees. The update looks especially at amendments to Thailand’s unfair trade practices in franchising, as well as the far-reaching Personal Data Protection Act, which is reshaping the way businesses—including franchises—are handling the personal data of customers, partners, and employees. The article is accompanied by a Chinese-language summary of the developments. The full article can be read online in the January–March 2023 issue of Asia Franchise & Business Opportunities.