Going to court is a time-consuming, expensive process that may not produce the desired result.
Compulsory mediation and conciliation are available to expedite proceedings. Thailand is a long-standing member of the New York Convention, allowing for foreign arbitral awards to be enforced within its territory. In addition, it has a specialised court for intellectual property disputes.
Arbitration
Arbitration is a common method of dispute resolution in Thailand. It is generally a more informal process where parties can negotiate and settle their disputes with the help of an arbitrator(s). The arbitration proceedings are private and confidential, thus protecting the privacy and reputation of a party. It can also be more cost-effective than litigation, and the results of an arbitration award are binding.
The Thai law on arbitration is largely based on UNCITRAL’s Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration with some specific additions unique to Thailand. It allows for out-of-court arbitration agreements, which can be included in contracts and can facilitate the enforcement of an arbitral award.
Conciliation is an important element in the dispute resolution process. Like mediation, it is an out-of-court option that involves a third party, referred to as the “mediator”. The mediator can help the parties to reach a voluntary settlement agreement by facilitating communication and examining the possible outcomes of a trial in court.
Conciliation
Conciliation is a less formal dispute resolution option that allows for a casual conversation between the parties. It can take place as an out-of-court process or as a court-supervised procedure. In either case, if the conflict is not resolved in conciliation, it can be escalated to litigation.
In Thailand, the chief trial judge has the discretion to administer conciliation during the course of a trial. When a judge believes that there is a good chance of an amicable settlement, they can convene closed-door sessions to bring about reconciliation.
Watson Farley & Williams (Thailand) Limited’s dispute resolution team is lauded for its domestic and international capability and handles a wide range of multi-jurisdictional disputes. Heading the team is Kong Suriyamontol, who leads the firm’s mining and natural resources, oil and gas and construction practices alongside Techatat Udomsiri and Sumit Masrungson. The team is well versed in the arbitration of complex multi-party commercial disputes and power projects, as well as business crime matters and insurance claims.
Out-of-court Mediation
Disputes in Thailand can be resolved in the courts, but the process is often lengthy and expensive. The Office of the Judiciary has worked on strategies to encourage parties to participate in alternative dispute resolution options like mediation and conciliation.
Mediation is generally a more informal process during which the mediator helps the disputing parties to communicate and compromise to reach a mutually satisfactory solution. The outcome is a mediated settlement agreement, which is generally binding upon the parties and can be enforced by the courts.
Mediation is a popular choice for disputes involving small claims, as it can be less costly than litigation. It is also effective in reducing the number of cases that go on to be appealed, which has a positive impact on the courts’ caseload.
Court-supervised Mediation
Going to court can be a costly and time-consuming process, especially when you have an ongoing business dispute or family issue. Moreover, the outcome of a judge’s decision may be unsatisfactory.
With this in mind, Thai lawmakers have been working on strategies to encourage disputing parties to utilize alternative dispute resolution options like mediation and arbitration. These methods offer disputing parties the opportunity to defer costs and avoid a drawn-out litigation process.
At a pre-trial conference, the judge can offer to conciliate the case or refer it to mediation services outside the courts. The judges also have the option of facilitating conciliation sessions at any point during the trial.
In the event the disputing parties agree on a one-arbitrator tribunal, they can choose who will serve as an arbitrator by removing the names of those that they don’t prefer from a list of potential arbitrators. The arbitration institute will then appoint the final arbitrator. The arbitration institute will also schedule a meeting with the disputing parties to establish a schedule, decide on evidence and procedure matters, and officially designate the tribunal.
