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​ 

October 19, 2022
The Factory Act B.E. 2535 (1992) is one of the most important laws regulating manufacturing businesses in Thailand. It applies to businesses either with machinery of 50 horsepower or more in total, or with a minimum of 50 workers in a facility that conducts “factory work” as defined under related ministerial regulations. The act was recently amended to extend the period of validity for factory licenses and to make other miscellaneous changes that facilitate business. However, the act’s criminal liabilities were left unchanged, and they remain a vital tool for the authorities to exert control over relevant standards and prosecute violations. Both fines and imprisonment are available as sanctions under the law. Examples of common violations of the Factory Act and their potential penalties include: Setting up and operating a factory without acquiring a license: up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to THB 200,000 (approx. USD 5,365), or both. Operating with noise level exceeding the standard set by the Ministry of Industry: a fine of up to THB 200,000. Not displaying a factory license in an open and easily visible location in the factory: a fine of up to THB 5,000 (approx. USD 134). Doing a test run of machinery prior to the start of the factory operations without notifying the authorities: a fine of up to THB 20,000. As factory activities are regulated in considerable detail, overlooking a minor change could potentially put the company at risk. The risk of violating the Factory Act increases when compliance is not a proactive policy—such as by instituting systems or safeguards to ensure adherence to the rules. Criminal Liability Violation of the Factory Act is especially a concern because criminal liability under the act is not limited to juristic persons (i.e., companies) but also applies to the director,
Read More
October 10, 2022
Thailand’s recent removal of cannabis from the list of narcotics represents a significant development for the country, and it has some human resources teams wondering whether they should prepare certain measures in order to prevent detrimental incidents from happening in their organizations. For example, some employees could still be under the influence of cannabis because they used it before coming to work. In the past, this was rarely a consideration as cannabis was clearly banned. Using cannabis or possessing cannabis inside the employer’s premises subjected employees to criminal liability including imprisonment and fines. However, now that the government has removed cannabis from the narcotics list under the Narcotics Act, such incidents are more likely to occur. This likelihood has led to concern among many employers about how they can prevent or handle these incidents. An employer does have the right to prohibit any employee from bringing cannabis inside its premises, as it is the property of the employer. The employer has the management right to do this, particularly as an employee’s use of cannabis may very well disturb other employees. But if the employer would like to set penalties for breaching the prohibition, the picture is more complicated. Employers’ Work Rules Under the Labour Protection Act (LPA), an employer who has at least 10 employees must have Thai-language work rules. These work rules must include the following items: Specification of working days, regular working hours, and rest periods; Holidays and rules for taking holidays; Rules concerning overtime work and work on holidays; Arrangements for payment of wages (i.e., schedule and location); Overtime pay, holiday pay, and holiday overtime pay; Leave and rules for taking leave; Discipline and disciplinary actions; Submission of grievances; and Termination of employment, severance pay and special severance pay. To issue or amend work rules (e.g.,
Read More
October 3, 2022
Impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic have led some manufacturers to reduce costs by changing production methods, designs, or machinery, or reducing the number of employees on payroll. While these strategies may reduce costs and help their business survive, they may also result to lower quality goods. In the worst case, however, these poor quality goods may cancel out or even outweigh a manufacturer’s cost savings if the products are deemed to be unsafe for consumers under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (officially the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act). The Product Liability Act has been in force for 14 years. However, there have been few landmark Supreme Court decisions related to it as most cases are settled before the final judgment. Consequently, most business owners have limited knowledge of the precedent cases and are unsure about what actions they can take to manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for claims of damages due to an unsafe product. The Product Liability Act identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators (individuals and entities) as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be penalized under the law: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified; Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements of the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be seen as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer The Product Liability Act defines a “product” as any kind of movable property that has been manufactured or imported for sale—including agricultural products and electricity, but excluding those ruled out by ministerial regulations. Therefore, real estate and services are excluded from the Product Liability Act. However, real estate buyers are protected by the Civil and Commercial Code, and by the
Read More
September 15, 2022
In the course of our work, we often hear about consumers in Thailand lodging complaints with the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) about problems with a purchased product or service. The OCPB is a government agency attached to the Office of the Prime Minister. Its main duties are to protect consumers in Thailand with respect to product advertising, product labeling, and contracts, and to handle consumer complaints. However, there are exceptions to the types of consumer complaints that the OCPB can handle. This is because some consumer complaints must by law be handled by certain specialized agencies. Examples of these exceptions include consumer complaints relating to: health products (food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, household dangerous substances, and narcotics); medical services; insurance; pricing of consumer products; condominium juristic person; public land; rail, water, and air transportation; tourism; education; banking and finance; telecommunications; and electricity and water consumption. Procedure When a consumer complaint that the office can accept comes to the OCPB, the officers first consider whether the business operator has violated any laws, in which case the relevant authorities, such as the police, should handle the matter. When the officers consider it appropriate, they may ask the parties to mediate the dispute. Complaints in Bangkok are mediated by officers at the Bangkok OCPB. For complaints lodged in other provinces, the governors of the provinces may assign officers or agencies under their supervision to mediate. The OCPB can mediate twice within 90 days. If the parties still want to continue with the mediation, a subcommittee of the Consumer Protection Board (CPB)—the body that directs the OCPB—will then conduct two more mediation sessions within 90 days. If a resolution is still not reached, the subcommittee can conduct one additional mediation session before declaring the mediation failed and ending the complaint
Read More