Thailand: A Dispute Resolution Overview

Thai Legal System

Thailand is a civil law jurisdiction grounded in codified statutes as the primary source of rights, duties and liabilities. Judicial precedent is not binding; however, decisions of the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court serve as highly persuasive guidance in practice and are usually followed for consistency.

Structurally, the Thai judiciary operates a dual court system characteristic of civil law jurisdictions, whereby jurisdiction is divided by subject matter between the Courts of Justice (which hear civil and criminal matters) and the Administrative Courts (which adjudicate disputes involving state authorities).

The courts of justice comprise three tiers.

• The Courts of First Instance are the lower courts where trials take place and can be categorised as general courts and specialised courts. The general courts are, for example, the Civil Court, the Criminal Court, the North Bangkok Municipal Court and the Phuket Provincial Court. The specialised courts are, for example, the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT), the Central Labour Court, the Central Bankruptcy Court and the Central Juvenile and Family Court.
• The courts of appeal review judgments of the courts of first instance, generally as of right.
• The Supreme Court is the highest and final court of the Kingdom; however, further appeals to this level are subject to leave.

The administrative courts follow a two-tier hierarchy, with the Supreme Administrative Court as the court of final instance. The Constitution also provides for the Constitutional Court and the military courts.

The principal sources of substantive law include the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC), the Penal Code and other specific statutes. Procedural rules are primarily governed by the Civil Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and other specific statutes.

Practical Considerations for Litigants

The following highlights key procedural and strategic features that litigants should take into account when navigating disputes in Thailand.

• General versus specialised courts: Claims must be filed with the competent court of first instance; however, specialised disputes (eg, IP, trade, labour, tax) are handled by dedicated courts with distinct procedures. Consumer cases are typically filed in general courts but follow specialised consumer procedures.
• Possible private criminal prosecution: Private parties may initiate criminal proceedings without the public prosecutor, subject to prima facie court screening. Criminal complaints (eg, criminal defamation) are sometimes deployed tactically alongside civil disputes to exert settlement pressure.
• Mediation: Mediation is actively encouraged both pre-litigation and during court proceedings. Where successful, it may be recorded as an in-court settlement and formalised by a consent judgment, which is directly enforceable in the event of non-compliance – without the need to re-litigate the underlying dispute.
• Judge-led proceedings (no jury): Cases are decided by professional judges, with possible associate judges in certain types of cases – eg, intellectual property and information technology (IP&IT), labour, family.
• Documentary evidence: There is no common law-style discovery process. Parties rely on their own evidence but may seek court-ordered production of specific documents from opposing parties or third parties – making early evidence preservation critical.
• Thai language requirement: All filings, evidence and witness testimony must be in Thai. Where the source of these are in another language, the quality of translations is critical and may affect the prospects of a successful claim/defence. Translations in large-scale and complex disputes have a significant impact on both cost and timing.
• Interim relief: Interim relief generally cannot be sought independently without filing a claim (except in support of arbitration). Emergency interim relief is available but subject to a high threshold and court discretion.
• Costs awards: Although procedural rules provide certain percentage-based costs recovery, courts commonly award only nominal costs without assessment of actual legal spend.

Worth-Noting Developments/Trends

Commercial disputes (B2B)

We have seen businesses deploy antitrust arguments in private contractual disputes to challenge restrictive practices and unfair trade terms, and to seek damages for economic loss. A threatened party can ask the Trade Competition Commission for injunctive relief. This powerful mechanism allows the regulator to suspend purported anti-competitive conduct – including contract termination – pending its investigation.

There has been an increase in shareholder disputes involving foreign investors and joint ventures (JVs). One particular area where we have seen foreign investors being caught out is where the negotiated provisions in the shareholder agreement (SHA) are not faithfully restated in the company’s articles of association (AOA). Under Thai law, the AOA governs the internal administration of the company and binds third parties; consequently, where a conflict arises, a company's internal corporate actions may be deemed valid even if they breach provisions in the SHA.

In large-scale property development projects involving foreign investors and contractors, we have seen issues arising from unexpected interpretations and enforcement of internationally used standard contracts. In disputes arising out of International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) contracts, the Thai courts do not consider interpretations from foreign jurisdictions nor from the drafters of the contract at FIDIC. Instead, Thai judges rely heavily on Thai civil law rules and concepts relating to “Contracts for Hire of Work”, which can be very different to those used by FIDIC.

The added complication is that it is the Thai language translation of the FIDIC contract that is interpreted, rather than the English language text. We have seen outcomes whereby critical clauses regarding deadlines or penalties may not be enforced in the Thai courts in the way foreign investors and contractors expect, making the interpretation and enforcement of what should be globally recognised standard-form contracts unpredictable.

Consumer disputes (B2C)

Consumer litigation in Thailand is distinct and strongly consumer-oriented, with courts exercising inquisitorial powers and imposing strict liability on business operators.

Although Thailand does not possess a US-style litigious culture, consumer class actions have gained substantial traction and are now a formidable risk. Our experience shows that this is particularly visible in the areas of product liability, financial misconduct and environmental claims.

Recently, in May 2026, the President of the Supreme Court issued guidelines on dismissing strategic lawsuits against public participation (anti-SLAPP), establishing clearer grounds for courts to look beyond private criminal complaints – often used to pressure whistle-blowers or journalists – and to dismiss bad-faith claims early.

Employment disputes

The labour courts function under an inquisitorial model where judges can take an active role in gathering evidence and questioning witnesses.

Termination without cause, even where statutory severance is paid in full, does not preclude an employee from bringing a separate claim for unfair dismissal. One of the recurring scenarios we encounter is where executives sue their former employer for "unfair dismissal", forcing courts to judge the commercial reasons behind the termination.

Sensitive non-compete and trade secret disputes are also spiking. When an executive jumps to a competitor, employers must take immediate legal action in both the labour and intellectual property courts to protect proprietary data, trade secrets and customer intelligence.

Outlook

Thailand’s dispute landscape continues to evolve in step with broader global trends, with increasing procedural complexity. For businesses – particularly those operating cross-border – a strong grasp of local legal nuances is critical to shaping effective strategies and maximising prospects of a successful litigation. Staying ahead of these developments will be key to navigating risks, resolving disputes effectively and positioning for commercial advantage.