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

March 23, 2020

The Impact of COVID-19 and Other Extraordinary Events on Contractual Performance

Subscribe to Updates

The dawn of the new decade brought with it familiar expectations of prosperity in global and regional commerce. This expectation has resonated throughout the ASEAN region and Thailand in particular, an historical favorite in the region for tourism and business investment. By the close of 2019 tourism numbers were at historic highs and investment in business and infrastructure were on the rebound, with parties to contracts in the region from both within and outside Thailand committing substantial resources to existing or contemplated commercial contracts.

But extraordinary events can disrupt even the most favorable of economic pictures. COVID-19 and its rapid escalation into a global pandemic has had a significant impact, not only on the global economic outlook, but also on regional operators’ business plans. The Thai government, following the lead of the WHO and other regional and global players, has employed measures to limit travel and public gatherings and in some cases has even restricted access to government functions. These measures, along with measures implemented by other countries, have caused unprecedented business disruptions affecting business operators in ways that may significantly impair their ability to meet their commercial contract obligations. But does this and similar global shocks constitute an excuse for nonperformance of commercial contracts? The answer lies largely in an analysis of the law of force majeure  and impossibility.

Force Majeure and Business Disruptions

Force majeure  is defined broadly as an event that could not have been reasonably anticipated and is otherwise beyond a party’s control. This is codified in Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code. Thai statutory law does not provide a list of specific instances that constitute force majeure , but the Thai Supreme Court has found that a party may be excused from certain contractual obligations in instances of widespread fire, flooding, extreme natural disruptions, extraordinary acts of government, and in periods of significant unrest. What is certain, however, is that the Thai Supreme Court has historically taken a conservative stance and has ruled that a party is excused from performance obligations in only a minority of force majeure  disputes. For this reason, parties wishing to avoid the uncertainty of the courts’ interpretation of force majeure  should consider including specific force majeure  clauses in their contracts.

Many commercial contracts, particularly in construction and supply of goods, contain some form of standard force majeure  clause. These clauses typically include a specific but limited list of events that are not within the control of the contracting parties. These may include events such as acts of God, war, and terrorism; but epidemics or pandemics, while increasingly common, are still not included in many force majeure  clauses. That said, specific force majeure  provisions are typically more inclusive than statutory force majeure  law and, as such, provide more certainty to contracting parties in the case of extraordinary events covered by the provision. While a specific force majeure  provision is preferred, it should be noted that statutory force majeure  law will be applied even where the contract is silent.

Impossibility

Thai statutory law further provides that if a contractual obligation becomes impossible to perform due to a future circumstance for which the party is not responsible, then that party may be excused from performance. For example, if performance becomes impossible due to a force majeure  or similar event, then a party would not be at fault for failure to perform under the contract. Neither would that party be entitled to compensation under the contract.

While there exist exceptions to the rule of impossibility, such as for certain specially ordered and manufactured products, the general rule may apply, provided that a party has done all that is reasonable under the circumstances, has not contributed to the breach, and could not have reasonably anticipated the events resulting in the impossibility of performance.

COVID-19

While the Thai Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the case of a healthcare pandemic as a basis for force majeure , it is widely believed that, given the extraordinary impact COVID-19 has had to date, the pandemic may indeed constitute a force majeure  event on which a party could rely in arguing that it should be excused from its contractual obligations, regardless of specific reference in a contract. The analysis does not end simply with a determination of force majeure , however.

Even where an event qualifies as a force majeure  event under statute or contract, resulting in an impossibility to perform, a dispute must nonetheless be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a party should be excused from performance of a given contract. For example, the law requires that a party seeking to avail itself of force majeure  as an excuse for nonperformance has an obligation to take reasonable care in seeking to limit and otherwise mitigate the effect of the force majeure  event. This can mean having contingency plans in place, being reasonably adaptive to developing events, and generally doing all that is reasonably necessary to seek to meet its contractual obligations. It is not enough to simply stand by and claim excuse from contractual obligations due to the unforeseen event. In fact, even some global emergencies may not impair a party’s ability to find alternative means to meet its contractual obligations, while in others the disruptions may indeed make it impossible to perform. Each situation and contract is unique, and these differences and the reactions of parties are critical in determining whether a court will impose some obligation on a party under the contract even where an event is defined clearly as force majeure .

COVID-19 represents an unprecedented shock to the world economy and to individual commercial contract obligations. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of planning, evaluation, and adaptation to limit legal uncertainties for businesses reliant on good-faith agreements with their business partners. This includes regular review of business plans and contractual provisions, such as force majeure  language, to ensure that business operators are best positioned to deal with legal complications from unexpected business disruptions.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More