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​ 

February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
Read More
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
Read More
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only
Read More