In response to the Covid-19 crisis, many courts around the world and specifically in Southeast Asia are strengthening their electronic filing systems and shifting to virtual hearings. Vietnam is following this trend and has committed to apply technological solutions to adopt an e-court system. While the Supreme Court of Vietnam established this objective before the outbreak of the pandemic in Directive No. 01/2020/CT-CA dated January 9, 2020, it has just proposed and submitted draft rules on online trials to the National Assembly in late September 2021. The Chairman of the National Assembly of Vietnam is now seeking the opinion and approval of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam before presenting the draft rules to the National Assembly for voting in their second meeting of the year in October 2021. If approved, it is expected that it will take some time for the rules on online trials to be adopted and implemented by the Vietnamese court system due to the need to upgrade the technology of the different court levels from the Supreme Court to lower-level courts. Training will also be required, so that judges, secretaries, and individuals working in the judiciary are equipped with sufficient IT knowledge in order to manage the system and hold the virtual court hearings effectively. Amid the pandemic, the need has arisen to proceed with temporarily suspended cases and to resume receiving petitions and other documents, especially in hard-hit areas that have been forced to refrain from opening any court meetings and hearings due to the Covid-19 outbreak. The situation needs to be resolved as soon as possible to effectively bring the cases to trial within the prescribed time limit, protect human rights and the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, stabilize social order and safety, and

“Condominium” combines the Latin roots com (“together”) and dominium (“right of ownership or property”) into a word that literally means “shared property.” This shared ownership of property—which in the condominium’s case has come to mean a large building of residential units—has been enormously popular in Bangkok and other Thai cities, and regardless of the economic situation in Thailand, condominiums continue to be attractive to Thai people and foreign investors due to their favorable locations, pleasant common spaces, access to convenient methods of transportation, and reasonable prices. The land available for “low-rise” buildings—such as detached houses, townhouses, twin houses, or commercial constructions—is expected to become progressively scarcer in urban areas, with condominiums or “high-rise” residences eventually becoming the residence of choice. Despite its advantages, living in condominiums involves the coming together of the people owning or leasing the units, so various conflicts among the owners or with the condominium juristic person are bound to arise from time to time. As a continuation of a similar discussion of condominiums that we wrote a few years ago, this article aims to provide some clarity to these issues by identifying some key elements of the legal framework governing condominiums, considering some of the more common disputes that arise, and suggesting legally sound resolutions to those disputes. Legal basics The main law governing condominiums in Thailand is the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979), which establishes the following key definitions: Condominium. A building in which the ownership is divided into multiple parts consisting of individual personal properties and jointly owned common property. Personal property. A condominium unit, including constructions and land provided to each unit owner. Personal property can be divided into two main types: a “unit,” which refers to the parts of the condominium that are divided to be owned by different persons; and

COVID-19 and the resulting lockdown measures to limit outbreaks in Thailand have caused significant financial difficulties for many business operators, large and small. Whether a business is a creditor or debtor, there is a high likelihood they have faced or will face a default caused by the pandemic. This article identifies three legal options available when a party defaults—civil cases, bankruptcy actions, and business rehabilitation actions—and compares key elements associated with each option. For context, those three options are defined as follows: Civil case. A legal proceeding in which a creditor files a civil lawsuit (or arbitration claim) against a debtor for debt collection. If a debtor fails to settle a debt in accordance with a judgment, the creditor can ask the court to enforce the judgment by seizure and sale of the debtor’s assets through public auction. Bankruptcy action. A legal proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act in which a government authority can collect a debtor’s assets, sell the assets by public auction, and distribute the net proceeds among creditors. In bankruptcy proceedings, the creditors will receive repayment in proportion to the size of the outstanding debts. Business rehabilitation action. A legal proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act aimed at helping a debtor recover from insolvency and continue its business. Debtors are given debt relief and a “new start” through business rehabilitation, while creditors are able to collect a higher percentage of outstanding debt under rehabilitation than they would under a bankruptcy action. In short, a civil case is a claim in court for repayment of a specific debt, a bankruptcy action results in distribution of the debtor’s assets among the creditors, and a business rehabilitation action aims to enable the debtor to stay in business while repaying their debts to some degree. A civil case may be appropriate when

Around the world, COVID-19 is continuing to threaten the health of millions, interrupt daily life, and throttle business activity. In Thailand, the latest wave of infections has been more intense than any since the beginning of the pandemic, and many businesses have been forced to close down once again. There are reasons for hope though—chief among them the increasing pace of vaccinations. Not only are the vaccines effective at preventing serious health issues, they are helping keep both employees and customers safe in business settings so that commerce, trade, and tourism can resume once again. Many in Thailand have already been vaccinated, and struggling employers are looking ahead to safely resuming full business activities, from reopening offices for employees who have been working from home, to welcoming customers and clients back to an environment that minimizes the risk of COVID-19 exposure. In anticipation of such a return to business at full capacity, many Thai employers are taking note of companies and organizations overseas boosting COVID-19 safety in workplaces by mandating vaccines and other measures, and asking whether such mandates could be imposed here in Thailand. The main legal concept to consider here is the provision in the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998), which authorizes employers to issue “lawful and just” orders to employees. For an order to be “lawful and just,” it must be proportionate to the circumstance. In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers can refer to the Communicable Diseases Act B.E. 2558 (2015), as well as other local regulations, to provide grounds when asserting that their risk-mitigation orders are proportionate, lawful, and just. It is doubtful that a Thai court would rule that the circumstances we find ourselves in now would justify an employer requiring employees to be vaccinated, but this legal standard can