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

December 19, 2025

Thailand Drafts Reforms to Cut Administrative Inaction

Subscribe to Updates

Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance.

The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications

At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires.

The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control.

Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage.

Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk.

The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals

The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection” mechanism for administrative appeals. Under current practice, applicants cannot seek relief in the Administrative Court until the internal appeal concludes, which often traps businesses in a procedural holding pattern. The draft breaks this deadlock.

If the appeal authority does not decide within specified timeframes—15 days for the issuing official to review and forward the appeal and 30 days for the appeal authority to decide, with one 30-day extension permitted upon notice—the appeal is deemed rejected. This deemed rejection provides immediate access to the Administrative Court without awaiting a formal denial that may never issue.

Mandatory Explanations for “Silent” Rejections

To prevent “black box” denials, the draft entitles appellants who receive a deemed rejection to demand written reasons within the litigation period. The agency must respond within thirty days, setting out the facts, legal grounds, and any discretionary considerations underpinning the outcome. The statute of limitations for filing suit is tolled during this thirty-day explanation window and resumes upon receipt of the reasons. This converts silence into a record, giving litigants a concrete basis to challenge either the underlying order or the process itself.

Digital-First Processes and the End of Redundant Documentation

The draft advances a digital-first administrative state with two key provisions:

  • Electronic procedures as default. The reform establishes electronic procedures as the standard approach and recognizes electronic timestamps as the official filing date and time. This reduces disputes about lost documents or delayed delivery—issues that are pivotal for invoking automatic approval or deemed rejection.
  • No more duplicate submissions. Officials are prohibited from requiring applicants to resubmit documents that the target agency already issued or that are accessible through Thailand’s central digital data-exchange infrastructure (such as the ubiquitous “copy of ID card” request). Foundational corporate and identity records, prior permits, and other common materials must be retrieved by the agency through the Government Digital Platform and interagency databases. This shift curbs repetitive certification and filing costs and shortens processing cycles.

Practical Implications for Businesses

Taken together, these provisions reorient Thai administrative practice from an authority-centric system to one grounded in service, predictability, and accountability. They attach legal consequences to official inaction, create reliable planning horizons for investment, and remove administrative silence as a barrier to court access.

Companies should prepare to operationalize the reforms by:

  • Mapping statutory decision periods across their licensing portfolios to understand when automatic approvals or deemed rejections will take effect;
  • Configuring compliance calendars keyed to electronic timestamps to ensure accurate tracking of deadlines; and
  • Preserving submission records to substantiate automatic approvals and deemed rejections if challenged.

The scope of automatic approval will depend on implementing ministerial regulations that will specify which licenses and permits qualify for automatic approval and which are excluded on public-interest grounds. Businesses should also pay attention to these instruments in order to align transaction timelines and regulatory strategies with the new framework.

Legislative Status and Outlook

Because the House of Representatives has been dissolved, the draft Act on Administrative Procedure will not proceed to parliamentary debate at this time. The draft will either be retained by the secretariat of the cabinet or be returned to the originating agency pending policy direction from the incoming government.

Given its procedural focus and nonpartisan character, the draft is a strong candidate for revival in the next legislative agenda. Its emphasis on administrative efficiency, transparency, and legal certainty aligns with broad public and commercial interests, making eventual passage reasonably likely once legislative priorities are reset.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 2, 2024
The Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) announced on April 19, 2024, that it has jointly set up an in-court arbitration pilot project with five courts in Thailand—namely, the Civil Court, Taling Chan Civil Court, Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, Samut Prakan Provincial Court, and Samut Prakan Khwaeng Court. The pilot project launched on May 1, 2024. Pilot Project This project is designed to encourage the parties in cases submitted to these courts to consider having parts of the case, or even the entire case, heard and determined by arbitrators under the Civil Procedural Code (CPC). The objective of the project is to provide faster and more efficient judicial services to the public by reducing the number of cases to be fully tried in the courts through providing an option for parties to engage in in-court arbitration. Still, the court remains largely involved in the process, as the court will consider the award in detail before determining whether to render a judgment in accordance with the award without any edits. Therefore, in-court arbitration favors parties who prefer to have a court judgment instead of an out-of-court arbitral award, which could lead to enforcement challenges under the Arbitration Act. Parties who participate in this pilot project will pay the TAI a fee for its administrative assistance and related services. The TAI will assist in setting up and facilitating meetings, witness hearings, and the necessary logistics pertaining to case files involving the arbitrators, the parties, and the court. After the arbitrators hear the case, the case files, including the witness statements, exhibits, and reports during the arbitration proceedings, are collected and sent back to the respective court along with the award. Under the pilot project, the arbitrators will issue awards within 30 days of the last day of the trial or
Read More
April 18, 2024
In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by
Read More
April 17, 2024
Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding
Read More
April 11, 2024
Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any
Read More