As Thailand transitions into an aged society, retirement policy and workplace protections for older workers have come into sharper focus. With public sentiment increasingly open to working beyond the traditional retirement age, questions about employee rights and employer obligations are more relevant than ever. In October 2025, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul proposed increasing the statutory retirement age to 65 for government officers, citing Thailand’s aged-society status and the potential social and economic benefits of longer working lives. While academics and stakeholders have raised concerns about systemic impacts, public opinion remains divided, with many workers signaling a willingness to continue working beyond the current norm. Against this backdrop, it’s worth revisiting what the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA) requires in regard to retirement and severance pay. This article explains the current legal landscape under the LPA, with a focus on retirement and severance pay for employees over 60, recent judicial developments, and practical options for structuring postretirement engagements. Retirement as Termination Under the LPA Under the LPA, retirement—whether set by agreement between employer and employee or unilaterally stipulated by the employer—is deemed a termination of employment. As a result, employees who retire under such terms are entitled to severance pay. The law also adds a default rule: if there is no agreed or prescribed retirement age, or if the prescribed retirement age exceeds 60, an employee aged 60 or older may declare an intention to retire. The declaration takes effect 30 days after notice, and the employer must pay severance accordingly. In short, retirement triggered by agreement, the employer’s work rules, or an employee’s valid notice is treated as a termination, and statutory severance pay is owed. Hiring or Rehiring Employees Over 60 Practical issues arise when an employer’s work rules set a retirement age that does not

One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations

Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have contributed the Thailand chapter to Litigation 2026, published by Chambers and Partners. Litigation 2026 provides an overview of litigation procedures and practices across numerous jurisdictions. The guide is a key reference for businesses, in-house counsel, and legal professionals seeking to understand and compare litigation frameworks around the world. The Thailand chapter delivers analysis of 14 core areas of litigation, including: General characteristics of the legal system and court structure Litigation funding options and requirements Procedures for initiating lawsuits and pre-trial steps Discovery processes and injunctive relief Trial procedures and rules on evidence Settlement mechanisms and enforcement Damages and judgment considerations Appeal processes and cost issues Alternative dispute resolution and arbitration Developments and future outlook for dispute resolution in Thailand Each section offers practical guidance on navigating Thailand’s litigation landscape, providing useful context for international businesses and legal practitioners involved in dispute resolution matters. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides deliver expert commentary on key practice areas across jurisdictions, allowing readers to compare legislation, procedures, and practical considerations relevant to business operations. The Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, and the full Litigation 2026 guide is available free of charge on the Chambers and Partners website.

Thailand’s Civil Court has issued a regulation targeting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of pleadings and other documents submitted to the court. Effective November 17, 2025, the regulation aligns with September 2025 guidance from the president of the Supreme Court, and aims to safeguard accuracy, transparency, and public confidence in civil adjudication. The regulation applies to all parties submitting pleadings or any documents to the Civil Court that are prepared using AI tools or contain AI-generated content. It subjects AI used for these purposes to strict requirements on verification, disclosure, and accountability. Core Obligations The regulation imposes four principal obligations: Lawyers who use AI remain subject to duties of honesty, responsibility to the court, professional standards, and legal ethics, including the duty to assess the appropriateness of the AI tool for the work. Parties and lawyers must verify the accuracy and completeness of all facts, legal provisions, and citations in AI-generated content before submission. Parties and lawyers must disclose to the court any AI-generated content by clearly marking the beginning and end of the AI-generated portion with prescribed statements (see below). Additionally, a certification confirming the use of AI must be provided at the end of the pleading or document, stating that AI was used for certain portions and that the party has reviewed and certifies the accuracy of factual and legal content. Parties and lawyers bear the same full legal and ethical responsibility for AI-generated content as they do for personally authored documents; they cannot evade responsibility or avoid liability by citing AI-related errors. Likewise, parties must ensure that any AI-generated content is truthful, accurate, and unbiased. Prescribed Disclosure Language Each instance of AI-generated content must be preceded by the statement “[The following content was prepared using artificial intelligence]” and must end with “[End