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​ 

August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More