Many multinational companies are familiar with the concept of “time off in lieu” (TOIL), under which employees receive compensatory time off instead of overtime pay for additional hours worked. While TOIL is common in many jurisdictions, employers in Thailand should be cautious, as Thai labor law does not expressly recognize TOIL as a substitute for statutory overtime-related compensation. Under the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA), employees who work overtime or perform work on holidays are generally entitled to statutory overtime, holiday, or holiday overtime compensation, including: Overtime Pay: 1.5 times the employee’s normal wage rate for work performed beyond normal working hours on a regular working day. Holiday Pay: 1 or 2 times the employee’s normal wage rate for work performed during normal working hours on a holiday, depending on category of employee. Holiday Overtime Pay: 3 times the employee’s normal wage rate for overtime work performed on a holiday. Importantly, the LPA does not contain any provision expressly permitting employers to substitute overtime-related compensation with compensatory leave, as such compensation is treated as a payment obligation rather than additional time off. Why TOIL Can Be Risky in Thailand Thai labor law is protective in nature, and statutory entitlements to overtime, holiday, and holiday overtime pay are generally regarded as minimum employee rights. As a result, these rights cannot be waived, even with the employee’s consent. Therefore, an employer who grants TOIL instead of paying statutory overtime-related compensation may still be exposed to claims for unpaid amounts, notwithstanding that compensatory leave has already been provided. Thai courts have affirmed this principle, holding that employers remain liable for statutory payments for work performed beyond normal working hours even where substitute time off has been granted. Are There Any Exceptions? Certain categories of employees are exempt from overtime-related compensation, such as: Employees who have genuine authority to act on

Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of the claim against

Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Shipping Law 2026 from the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This comprehensive guide provides detailed legal analysis of shipping laws, regulatory frameworks, and maritime dispute resolution across key maritime jurisdictions worldwide. Each chapter follows a structured Q&A format, organized into critical sections covering key aspects of maritime law and practice, including: Marine casualties, collision liability, pollution regimes, salvage, and general average Marine cargo claims, statutory carrier obligations, liability limits, and misdeclaration of cargo Maritime passenger claims, personal injury liabilities, and consumer case procedures Vessel arrest, counter-security, provisional attachment, and maritime liens Evidence preservation, perpetuation procedures, and electronic document disclosure Court jurisdiction, specialized IP&IT litigation, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) Enforcement of foreign court judgments and arbitral awards under the New York Convention 1958 Offshore wind energy initiatives, regulatory permits, and cabotage restrictions Sector developments, including the Landbridge project and decarbonization trends The Thailand chapter, authored by Noppramart Thammateeradaycho and Panchaya Rattanaumnuaishai, examines these topics in detail, highlighting key statutory regimes such as the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), the Arrest of Ships Act, and the jurisdiction of the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Shipping Law 2026 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.

Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad faith can now be raised

In August 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade released a draft decree to replace Decree No. 35/2020/ND-CP detailing certain articles of the Competition Law (Decree 35). The key changes under the draft decree and their implications for M&A transactions in Vietnam are summarized below. Definition of “Management Body” Decree 35 uses the term “management body” (bộ phận điều hành) as one of the criteria to determine the group of affiliated enterprises for the purpose of merger filing. However, there is no definition of the term, leaving enterprises without a basis on which to apply it consistently. The draft decree introduces a statutory definition of “management body,” being a person or group of persons who (i) own more than 50% of charter capital or voting shares; (ii) hold ownership or use rights over more than 50% of an enterprise’s assets; (iii) are an enterprise manager under enterprise law; or (iv) have decision-making power over the enterprise’s resolutions, daily business operations, or business and investment plans. This helps enterprises better assess the scope of merger filing. Determination of Relevant Product Market Under Decree 35, the relevant product market is defined solely by reference to goods and services interchangeable in characteristics, intended use, and price without accommodating digital or zero-price products. The draft decree expands the relevant product market to include “products” (sản phẩm) in addition to traditional “goods and services,” which captures digital information products, AI products, and other novel offerings. Additionally, it adds “other relevant competitive factors” such as quality of products, goods, and services for determining the relevant product market, supplementing the existing factors of characteristics, intended use, and price. This addresses cases where price substitutability is not meaningful for certain consumers or users, i.e., zero-price products. Determination of Relevant Geographic Market Under Decree 35, only physical geographic area is referenced for determining the

Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has released for public comment a draft bill to amend the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979), the country’s foundational consumer protection legislation. The draft amendment aims to modernize the nearly five-decade-old framework to address the rapid growth of digital commerce, online advertising, influencer marketing, and new business models. The public consultation period is open until October 10, 2026. Expanded Definitions Covering Digital Commerce The draft significantly broadens several core definitions to capture modern commercial activities: “Consumer” is expanded to include natural persons and nonprofit juristic persons who purchase or receive services, including those solicited by businesses and end users who do not directly pay for the goods or services. “Business operator” now explicitly covers advertising business operators and hired advertising persons, such as influencers and content creators. “Advertising media” is expanded to include digital platforms, social media, and social media user accounts. “Label” now encompasses electronic labels—symbols, codes, or other electronic formats displaying product information. Influencer and Advertising Disclosure Requirements In addition to these expanded definitions, “hired advertising person for selling goods or services” is a new definition covering influencers, content creators, live streamers, affiliate marketers, and virtual online media operators who receive monetary compensation or other benefits for advertising goods or services. Hired advertising persons—including influencers and content creators—must disclose to consumers that content is advertising and reveal their relationship with the business owner. Disclosure is required when the business owner employs the advertiser, pays or provides other benefits for the advertisement, or provides free or discounted products or services. These requirements apply where consumers would not otherwise know that the business has a connection to the person presenting the content. Labeling Requirements for Importers The draft introduces a clearer labeling obligation for importers of label-controlled goods, who must prepare labels within 30 days of customs clearance. The OCPB’s Labeling

Insurance specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok have contributed the updated Thailand chapter to the newly released 2026 edition of Thomson Reuters’ Practical Law guide to insurance and reinsurance. The Thailand chapter offers a comprehensive Q&A-style overview of the legal and regulatory framework governing insurance and reinsurance in the country. It provides key insights for businesses, insurers, reinsurers, and intermediaries operating in or entering the Thai market. Key topics covered include: Market structure and common types of insurance Regulatory framework and oversight by the Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) Authorisation requirements for insurers, reinsurers, and intermediaries Ownership restrictions and foreign investment rules Corporate governance, capital requirements, and solvency obligations Reinsurance arrangements, including fronting, risk transfer, and common contractual clauses Policy content requirements, standard clauses, and consumer protections Claims procedures, statutory time limits, and subrogation rights Dispute resolution mechanisms, including OIC arbitration and court proceedings Insolvency protections for policyholders Tax treatment of insurance and reinsurance businesses in Thailand Recent legal developments, including updated OIC regulations and insurance licensing guidelines The 2026 edition reflects Thailand’s evolving regulatory environment, including ongoing legislative reforms to strengthen corporate governance, risk-based capital requirements, and digital media compliance in the insurance sector. It also highlights practical considerations for foreign insurers, reinsurers, and intermediaries seeking to participate in Thailand’s insurance market. Tilleke & Gibbins contributes regularly to the Practical Law series of guides for various jurisdictions in Southeast Asia, providing trusted legal insight for multinational companies. Access the full Thailand chapter below. Reproduced from Practical Law with the permission of the publishers. For further information, visit practicallaw.com.

The Myanmar Investment Commission (MIC) has issued a notification that gives investors with projects in Myanmar clearer guidance for securing approval and for changing, expanding, or exiting an approved project. Issued on August 19, 2026, MIC Notification No. 5/2026 replaces MIC Notification No. 26/2021 and sets procedures for state or regional investment committees to review, approve, and supervise investment projects, including project amendments, investment increases, land-use rights applications, compliance inspections, and suspension or termination of approved businesses. Endorsement Application Timeline and Deemed Acceptance In Myanmar, prospective investors seeking approval under the Myanmar Investment Law generally do so through an MIC permit or an MIC endorsement, depending on the nature of the investment. While certain large-scale investment projects require an MIC permit, projects that are not required to obtain an MIC permit may instead apply for an MIC endorsement. Investors seeking MIC endorsement for their planned projects typically submit their applications to the relevant state or regional investment committee. These committees are established under the Myanmar Investment Law and are authorized to approve investments of less than USD 5 million, subject to the project’s nature and location. MIC Notification No. 5/2026 specifies that upon receiving an endorsement application, the relevant investment committee office will check it for completeness and determine whether it can be considered at the state or regional level or must be referred to the MIC; if it must be forwarded to the MIC, this will be done within 10 working days. If an application is within its purview, the committee may reject the endorsement application within 15 working days of receipt; otherwise, the application is deemed accepted. If approved, the endorsement certificate will be issued within 10 working days of the approval decision, subject to applicable procedures. Endorsement Certificate Amendment The notification clarifies which amendments a state or regional investment committee may approve