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

May 21, 2020

Thai Courts Adjust Case Management Procedures for the COVID-19 Crisis

Subscribe to Updates

The Thai judiciary has issued multiple measures and guidelines for case management during the COVID-19 outbreak. The latest came in May 2020, when the president of the Supreme Court issued further details and guidance on the handling of cases during the COVID-19 outbreak in an official announcement titled Measures for Case Management according to the Declaration of an Emergency Situation between March 26, 2020, and April 30, 2020, in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand.

This announcement generally confirmed and extended previous guidelines issued to provide direction on the management of cases in the Thai judicial system. The Thai judiciary first responded to the crisis on March 24, 2020, when they announced postponement of various hearings and set forth guidelines for relevant parties. The president of the Supreme Court gave greater details in measures issued on April 2, and on April 23, 2020, the newly formed Sub-Committee for Education, Follow-Up and Finding Solutions for Case Management during the COVID-19 Outbreak issued further guidelines regarding the management and postponement of cases between May 1 and May 30, 2020. This article discusses the items detailed in these measures.

Scheduling of Postponed and New Hearings

According to the April 23 guidelines, parties to cases with hearings that are postponed to June 1–30, 2020, should coordinate with the relevant court officer by submitting a signed confirmation of the new hearing date by mail, electronic media, or other method. In instances where the officer is unable to contact or otherwise coordinate with a party, the officer will send a summons by registered mail with a receipt.

Specific Procedural Contingencies

The sub-committee’s April 23 guidelines also detail how to handle some specific circumstances that may arise by grouping cases into three different categories. The first, “special management cases,” covers those which involve uncomplicated civil matters that can be completed relatively quickly (such as cases with no answer, or highly specific complaints that can be simply enforced), as well as criminal cases in the preliminary hearing stage and in which the plaintiff is a Thai citizen. The second category is “general cases,” which includes more complicated civil cases, such as where the defendant has responded denying the complaint; prima facie criminal cases; and criminal cases in which the prosecutor is the plaintiff. The third category is “special general cases,” which are general cases with an especially significant amount of evidence requiring extended consideration.

Criminal special management cases that can proceed in court include witness examination hearings where the defendant pleads guilty, and evidence inspection hearings where the defendant is detained in custody. However, the court will have to consider the number of cases, the people involved, and the robustness of the videoconferencing system connecting the court and the prison or other detention center, in accordance with the Judicial Regulation on the Procedure of Criminal Cases.

As for civil special management cases that can proceed in court, these include matters such as probate hearings, hearings to declare a person disappeared, hearings to appoint guardians for a juvenile, and other cases where the judge believes postponement would result in damage to the parties. The court will also need to exercise discretion regarding the safety of relevant people, whether postponement would be a viable alternative, and each party’s consent.

For special management cases, newly filed complaints will be scheduled for August–September 2020, depending on the number of cases, and are to be scheduled after the postponed hearings of April and May 2020. The relevant court officer will send the necessary summons, to inform parties of the scheduled hearings, by registered mail requiring a receipt.

General cases and special general cases that can proceed include hearings in criminal cases where the defendant is in custody, hearings in which a party is ready to present witnesses, hearings where the judge believes that the safety of the relevant persons will not be impacted, and hearings where the judge believes postponement would result in damage to either or both parties. Here again, the parties’ consent will be taken into consideration.

An example of a general or special general case requiring judicial discretion would be a hearing in which there is only one witness left to present. The judge will consider circumstances such as the potential impact of postponement, or of proceeding without delay, and may choose whether to postpone any hearings scheduled to be held between May 1 and May 30, 2020, with approval from the chief justice or chief judge.

For judgment hearings in criminal cases that were held between May 1 and May 30, 2020, the judgment will be read as scheduled, regardless of whether all defendants have been granted temporary release or remain in custody. However, if the judge believes the hearing will not be safe for those involved, the judge may use his or her discretion in choosing whether to postpone the judgement hearings. Also in criminal cases, any review to consider granting temporary release will be carried out in accordance with the April 2 case management guidelines issued by the president of the Supreme Court. 

Judgment hearings scheduled to be held between May 1 and May 30, 2020, will likewise be held according to the further details and guidance provided by the president of the Supreme Court in the measures announced on April 2. These guidelines also apply to cases where the judge needs to review petitions for extension of a deadline to submit an appeal (or final appeal) that falls between May 1 and May 30, 2020.

Staying the Course

The COVID-19 outbreak has been an obstacle to the smooth continuation of judicial proceedings in Thailand, but the courts have shown that they have the resources and adaptability to handle the extraordinary circumstances. While the impacts of this unprecedented situation reverberate through the economic, social, and business spheres, it is important that companies and other parties to litigation or judicial actions maintain a steady strategy, adapting where needed and standing firm when circumstance allow. To ensure that the most effective and economical choices are being taken at this time, businesses should consult with their legal counsel before choosing a course of action regarding ongoing or upcoming litigation.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

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