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

April 27, 2020

Thailand Further Details Case Management and Judicial Procedure under the COVID-19 Crisis

Subscribe to Updates

On April 2, the president of the Supreme Court issued further details and guidance on the handling of cases during the COVID-19 outbreak in 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. The Thai judiciary’s initial response to the crisis had come in an announcement on March 24, 2020, that postponed most hearings until the end of May 2020 and enumerated a list of exceptions to this postponement.

The April 2 announcement—which could likely be extended—builds on this and specifies how postponed cases will be handled, addressing the cases by category. The first category is “special management cases,” which includes uncomplicated civil cases 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.” For civil cases, this means more complicated cases, such as where the defendant has responded denying the complaint; for criminal cases, this includes prima facie cases as well as cases in which the prosecutor is the plaintiff. Finally, “special general cases” refers to general cases that have an especially significant amount of evidence requiring extended consideration.

The April 2 announcement recommends that the person responsible for the court services in question use his or her discretion in choosing whether to postpone any hearings scheduled to be held between April 1 and April 30, 2020—including some listed as exceptions in the March 24 announcement—as follows:

Special Management Cases

  • Witness examination hearings in criminal cases where the defendant pleads guilty or the defendant is in the custody.
  • Evidence inspection hearings in criminal cases.
  • Probate hearings.
  • Hearings for declaring a person disappeared.
  • Hearings to appoint guardians for a juvenile.
  • Hearings where a judge believes postponement would result in damages to the parties.

General Cases and Special General Cases

  • Hearings in criminal cases where the defendant is in custody.
  • Hearings in which a party is ready to present witnesses.
  • Hearings where a judge believes postponement would result in damage to the parties.

Scheduling of Postponed and New Hearings

The April 2 announcement specifies that in all cases, such as when a judge postpones a hearing a schedules a new one, no summons for a new hearing will be issued or served before April 30, 2020. Announcements to parties will be made by electronic media or telephone during this period. If the judge postpones a hearing but has not scheduled a new one, or if the process of determining a date for rescheduling is still underway, the court officer is directed to coordinate with the parties via electronic media or telephone, taking into account the number of cases scheduled for each day in order to avoid any crowd.

For new complaints or hearings that have not yet been scheduled, the court will handle the matters differently based on which of the above categories the cases fall into. For Special Management Cases, newly filed complaints should be scheduled for August–September 2020, depending on the number of cases. For General Cases and Special General Cases, new hearings will be rescheduled for dates after the postponed hearings.

Specific Procedural Contingencies

The April 2 announcement of the Supreme Court president also details how to handle some specific circumstances that may arise, mostly in regard to pending criminal cases.

If the defendant is in custody, whether in prison or elsewhere, communication with the defendant in criminal cases (e.g., asking whether he or she has a lawyer, reading and explaining the complaint, requesting an answer) and witness examination are to be performed at court in accordance with the Judicial Regulation on the Procedure of Criminal Cases.

Judgment hearings held between April 1 and April 30, 2020, are to be handled as follows:

  • For civil cases: As scheduled. If a party does not appear before the court, the court may read the judgment if it chooses (Civil Procedure Code, section 140(3), paragraph 2).
  • For criminal cases: If all defendants have been granted temporary release, the judgment hearing will be postponed and defendants kept informed of any developments. If a party asks the judge to read a judgment as it was scheduled, the judge can proceed by issuing any measure necessary for the safety of all relevant persons.

If some defendants or all defendants are imprisoned, the judge will read the judgment as it was scheduled to the defendant in accordance with the Judicial Regulation on the Procedure of Criminal Cases.

For cases where the deadline to submit an appeal or final appeal falls between April 1 and April 30, 2020, judges are directed to review any petition for extension in a way that is beneficial to the party. This is especially applicable in criminal cases, where the defendant must appear before the court officer at the time of submitting the appeal or final appeal. In this situation, the judge is directed to grant the deadline extension request.

To reduce the density of the prison population, thus lowering the chances of COVID-19 spreading inside prisons, judges are directed to consider granting temporary release in criminal cases, with additional conditions. For instance, the judge may mandate the defendant’s whereabouts, order the use of monitoring equipment, or appoint a custodian to chaperone the defendant. Judges are also directed to allow the accused  parties or defendants to present themselves via telephone or electronic media instead of by physical appearance at the court. Individuals to receive such consideration include any accused or defendant who has never been in custody, defendants granted temporary release in a criminal case, and defendants who have been sentenced to prison for five years or less in cases where the defendant did not submit an appeal or a final appeal.          

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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