By Dr. Paul Crosio
May 2025
Thailand’s arbitration framework, anchored by its ratification of the 1958 New York Convention and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), provides a structured pathway for enforcing domestic and foreign arbitral awards. While the system aligns with global standards, practitioners must navigate unique procedural and practical challenges. This article outlines key considerations for enforcing awards in Thailand.
Legal Framework
Thailand’s arbitration regime is governed by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545, which is based on the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law. Notably, Thailand has not adopted the 2006 revisions to the Model Law, opting instead for localized adaptations. The Act empowers tribunals to grant interim measures and mandates courts to enforce awards unless limited grounds for refusal exist (e.g., public policy violations or procedural irregularities under Section 43).
As Gary Born emphasizes, the efficacy of arbitration frameworks hinges on legislation and on judicial cooperation (International Commercial Arbitration, 3rd ed.). Thai courts generally adopt a pro-enforcement stance, yet local interpretations and procedural nuances require careful navigation.
Enforcement Process
- Court Application: A petition must be filed within three years of the award’s enforceability, accompanied by the original award, arbitration agreement, and Thai translations.
- Jurisdiction:
- Commercial disputes: Court of Justice or IP&IT Court.
- Public contracts: Administrative Court.
- Judicial Review: Courts assess compliance with Section 43, focusing narrowly on procedural fairness and public policy.
- Execution: Once recognized, awards are enforced akin to domestic judgments under the Civil Procedure Code.
Timeframes:
- Initial proceedings: 6–12 months.
- Appeals (e.g., to the Supreme Court): 1–2 additional years.
- Asset recovery: Often protracted due to debtor resistance.
Key Challenges
- Debtor Tactics: Delays via procedural objections or annulment requests (e.g., under Section 40).
- Public Policy: Courts may refuse enforcement for conflicts with Thai law or morals. For instance, in Supreme Court Judgment No. 2050/2566, an award was annulled for binding a non-party.
- State Entities: Sovereign immunity and bureaucratic hurdles under the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 complicate enforcement against state-owned enterprises.
- Asset Tracing: Limited prejudgment freezing mechanisms hinder recovery, particularly in insolvency scenarios.
Investor-State Disputes
Thailand’s participation in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) cases, such as Walter Bau v. Thailand and Kingsgate v. Thailand, underscores challenges in enforcing awards against state entities. These cases highlight the need to align domestic laws and international treaty obligations.
Conclusion
Thailand remains a reliable jurisdiction for arbitration, bolstered by its adherence to the New York Convention and a judiciary increasingly attuned to international norms. However, award creditors must proactively address challenges:
- Secure certified translations early.
- Anticipate public policy defences.
- Engage local counsel for asset tracking and procedural compliance.
Professor Loukas Mistelis notes that arbitration’s success depends on enforcement efficiency (Concise International Arbitration, 2nd ed.). By leveraging Thailand’s structured framework while mitigating risks, parties can optimize outcomes in this dynamic jurisdiction.
References:
- Arbitration Act B.E. 2545; New York Convention;
- UNCITRAL Model Law;
- Supreme Court Judgments No. 2050/2566, 3872-3873/2566;
- Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration; Loukas Mistelis, Concise International Arbitration.
The comments herein are for discussion and information purposes only and are not guaranteed to be up to date. Nothing herein should be or can be relied on as legal advice.
For any questions, you may contact Formichella & Sritawat at [email protected]
© 2025 Formichella & Sritawat Attorneys at Law
