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

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

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

Following the recent enactment of a comprehensive legal framework addressing sexual harassment, Thailand has launched a fast-track judicial process enabling victims of online sexual harassment to obtain court orders suspending and removing obscene content from the internet. On January 26, 2026, the Office of the Judiciary introduced the “Take It Down” procedure through the Court Integral Online Service (CIOS) platform, providing victims with their first direct, expedited pathway to halt the spread of online content that violates the new legal provisions against sexual harassment. This new remedy stems from section 284/4 of the Penal Code, introduced through the Act Amending the Penal Code (No. 30) B.E. 2568, which took effect on December 30, 2025. Under section 284/4, an injured person or a competent official may petition the court to suspend dissemination of violating data and remove the data from computer systems within a court-specified period. The court may also direct system controllers, service providers, or competent authorities to carry out the order and report back within 15 days. Filing through the CIOS Platform The CIOS platform serves as the primary electronic channel for these petitions. Key features include: Individuals can file online without appearing in person and may submit petitions at any time the system is available. Users must complete digital identity verification via the ThaID application to access the CIOS. Petitions under section 284/4 are limited to requests to suspend or remove violating content. Claims for monetary damages must be pursued separately, including via separate proceedings or prefiling mediation. Streamlined Review Process The submission workflow is end-to-end electronic, and the system provides step-by-step guidance. After submission, court staff review the petition before presenting it to a judge for consideration. The court may conduct an online inquiry to obtain additional information, and in-person attendance is required only if deemed