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

February 25, 2022

Thailand Seeks to Tackle E-commerce Disputes with New Civil Court Division

Subscribe to Updates

As internet availability and speeds have taken off in Thailand, more and more consumers in the country have adjusted their behavior by purchasing products through websites and online applications. However, they sometimes find that not all transactions turn out as expected. As online sales have increased, the number of disputes over these transactions has also continued to grow. Local news outlets are now reporting on the latest official response to this trend: a new division of the Civil Court designed to cope with the growing number of disputes from online transactions.

The Honorable Chief Justice Piyakul Boonperm, president of Thailand’s Supreme Court, is aiming to expand internet shoppers’ access to justice by setting up a special division to work on cases involving online transactions. The announcement of the formation of this division was published in the Government Gazette on December 20, 2021, and the Civil Court announced shortly after that it would start operating on January 27, 2022. The announcement does not affect cases filed prior to January 27, 2022, and does not revoke plaintiffs’ rights to file cases through alternative legal means.

The special division handles only disputes between buyers and sellers in an online transaction over a legal right or obligation related to consumption of goods or services in accordance with section 3(1) of the Consumer Procedural Act B.E. 2551 (2008) on what the law called “consumer cases.” This also includes bodies that can act on a consumer’s behalf by law, such as a consumer protection commission, association, or foundation approved by the Consumer Protection Commission.

Only cases that can be handled remotely through the court’s electronic system fall within the scope of this announcement—cases that cannot be completely handled online will not be taken up by the new special division. Accordingly, parties must utilize the court’s e-filing system, and all steps in the proceedings must be online, including filing the complaint, conducting hearings, participating in the mediation process, taking witness testimony and other evidence, conducting trials, and granting judgments.

The special division relies on previously available legal tools. Parties have access to the e-filing system 24 hours a day and can file documents with the court without having to be physically present at the court. Conducting proceedings through the e-filing system, which has been available since May 2017, usually speeds up the process of sending documents to the court and counterparties. Also, other procedural laws in relation to consumer laws were not changed. Thus, there is no significant impact in terms of the laws used in litigating the cases. All parties are still bound by the same set of rules as before, such as laws on evidence and other related procedural laws.

The new special division could potentially cause an increase in the number of cases litigated in the Thai courts. Nonetheless, having a new division of judges and court personnel at the Civil Court dedicated specifically to these online dispute cases should have a significant impact as well, meaning that ultimately, these types of cases are likely to be handled more swiftly than traditional ones.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More
December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
Read More