THE SEARCH FOR RELIEF IN PROVISIONAL MEASURES
Keywords:
provisional measures, Thai arbitration law, power of arbitral tribunals in Thai-seated arbitrations, enforcement of provisional measuresAbstract
The absence of an express power of arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures raises a question if this is precluded under Thai arbitration law. The practice of Thai arbitral institutes to include such a power for the issuance of interim measures may be explained by an inherent authority of arbitral tribunals. The article questions this proposition of an inherent power of arbitral tribunals to order interim measures where the applicable curial law is Thai law. The argument made is that neither the arbitration law nor developments to arbitration rules show traces of an implied power of the tribunal. The residual position of an exclusive competence of Thai courts for interim measures of protection potentially undermines the fairness and efficiency expected from arbitration proceedings. In such circumstances, an amendment to the arbitration law to expressly confirm the power of arbitral tribunals to order interim measures and the recognition and enforcement thereof provides an important safeguard against frustrating the arbitral process.
References
Luke R. Nottage and Sakda Thanitcul, “The Past, Present and Future of International Investment Arbitration in Thailand” (28 April 2016, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 16/31, Sydney Law School), 17 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2770889> (“However, the Model Law regime emphasises respect for autonomy of the arbitration process, and commentators argue that even though the 2002 Act does not expressly permit arbitrators to issue interim measures, it does not preclude this power if parties have agreed on it (directly or through relevant arbitration rules)”).
Instead, the first amendment in 2019 to the TAA eased the process for foreign arbitrators and representatives to participate in arbitration proceedings in Thailand: Arbitration Act (No. 2) BE 2562 (2019). Following this an arbitration bill debated was for a judicial review of arbitral awards in cases involving a state agency: see, Section 3 of the Draft Arbitration Act, <https://www.parliament.go.th/ewtadmin/ewt/parliament_parcy/download/section77/section77_arbitration.pdf>; House of Representatives Agenda for 9 February 2022 <https://edoc.parliament.go.th/Meeting/MeetingViewer.aspx?id=812>.
Gary B Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021) 2606, 2610.
ibid, 2619: (“Although historic limitations on arbitrators’ power have been removed in almost all states […]. That remains the case, for example, in Italy, China, and Thailand, where local legislation still provides that the granting of provisional measures is reserved exclusively to local courts, which are authorized to issue provisional relief in aid of arbitration”); Emi Rowse and Dutsadee Dutsadeepanich, "Thailand", 9 <https://www.ibanet.org/MediaHandler?id=AF819767-C572-4B20-97AD-448D3CE1EFFD>.
Xing Xiusong and Wang Heng, "Interim Measures in Arbitration Proceedings in China" (Global Arbitration Review, 27 May 2022) <https://globalarbitrationreview.com/review/the-asia-pacific-arbitration-review/2023/article/interim-measures-in-arbitration-proceedings-in-china>.
Osborne Clarke, "Italy Enters New Era of Arbitration 'Friendliness'" (27 April 2023) <https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/italy-enters-new-era-arbitration-friendliness>; Cecilia Buresti and Edoardo Mazzoli, "A Modernization of Italian Arbitration Law" (Norton Rose Fulbright International Arbitration Report) 35-36, 35 <https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/f3baa1b1/a-modernization-of-italian-arbitration-law>.
See e.g. Thai Arbitration Institute Arbitration Rules 2017 Article 39 (“TAI Rules”); Thailand Arbitration Center Arbitration Rules 2015 Article 66(5) (“THAC Rules”).
Thai Arbitration Institute (“TAI”), “TAI Overview” <https://tai.coj.go.th/en/content/page/index/id/56>; Ministry of Justice Thailand Organization Structure <https://www.moj.go.th/view/7782>.
Ciarb, "Applications for Interim Measures" (International Arbitration Practice Guideline 2016) 4 <https://www.ciarb.org/media/4194/guideline-4-applications-for-interim-measures-2015.pdf> (“If there are no express provisions allowing the arbitrators to grant interim measures and provided that there is no prohibition under the arbitration agreement, including the applicable arbitration rules and/or the lex arbitri, arbitrators may conclude that they have an implied power to do so.”).
Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line v Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line, Case No. C-391/95, [1998] ECR 1-7091, 7133 (ECJ).
UNCITRAL Model Law 1985 with 2006 Amendments Article 17; Mihaela Apostol and Kabir Duggal, ‘Provisional Measures’ (Jus Mundi, 21 September 2022) <https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-provisional-measures>; See also, Born (n 3) 2651-2653.
Philip Norman and Leanie van de Merwe, ‘Interim Relief, Including Emergency Arbitrators in Construction Arbitration’ (Global Arbitration Review, 19 October 2021) <https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-construction-arbitration/fourth-edition/article/interim-relief-including-emergency-arbitrators-in-construction-arbitration>; Born (n 3) 2729.
V.V. Veeder, Provisional and Conservatory Measures. Enforcing Arbitration Awards under the New York Convention: Experience and Prospects. (1999, United Nations Publication) 21.
Gary B Born, International Arbitration: Law and Practice (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2016) 211.
Channel Tunnel Group v Balfour Beatty Construction [1993] AC 334; Report of the Secretary General, Possible Uniform Rules on Certain Issues Concerning Settlement of Commercial Disputes: Conciliation, Interim Measures of Protection, Written Form for Arbitration Agreement (20-31 March 2000, UN Doc.A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.108) 24 at para. 104.
Ronald A Brand, ‘Provisional Measures in Aid of Arbitration’ (2023) 61 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 133, 136.
“2021 International Arbitration Survey: Adapting arbitration to a changing world” (Queen Mary University, School of International Arbitration, White & Case LLP) 8 <https://www.whitecase.com/publications/insight/2021-international-arbitration-survey>.
Born (n 3) 2612 (“Consistent with the foregoing analysis, over the past several decades, virtually all developed jurisdictions have rejected historic prohibitions against the authority of arbitral tribunals to grant provisional measures.”).
Constance Malleville, "Interim Measures in French Seated Arbitrations – Do They Measure Up?" (Clyde & Co Market Insight, 16 June 2022) <https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2022/06/interim-measures-in-french-seated-arbitrations-do>.
Born (n 3) 2618. 1985 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”) listed jurisdictions <https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial¬_arbitration/status>.
Arbitration Act BE 2530 (1987) <https://www.newyorkconvention.org/11165/web/files/document/2/1/21416.pdf>.
UNCITRAL, Model Law Status of Adoption (n 30); Kornkieat Chunhakasikarn and John Frangos, "Thailand" in Gerhard Wegen, Stephan Wilske and Gleiss Lutz (eds), Getting the Deal Through - Arbitration 2017 (Law Business Research 2017) 353 - 360, 353. (“Thailand’s arbitration law is the Arbitration Act BE 2545 (the Arbitration Act), which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law.”). See also, Nottage and Thanitcul (n 1) 16.
Sorawit Limparangsri and Prachya Yuprasert, “Arbitration and Mediation in ASEAN: Laws and Practice from a Thai Perspective” (2003) 190.
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (UN, A/40/17) 20 para. 26.
Alastair Henderson, "Thailand" (IBA Arbitration Guide, February 2012) 8. See also, Saowanee Asawaroj, "National Report for Thailand (2013)" in Jan Paulsson and Lise Bosman (eds), ICCA International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration Kluwer Law International (Kluwer Law International 2013) 8.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order 3, 29 September 2006 [135]; Born (n 3) 2613. TAI as drafters of the TAA: Warathorn Wongsawangsiri, Jedsarit Sahussarungsi and Chadamarn Rattanajarungpond, "Thailand" in James Carter (ed), International Arbitration Review (10th edn, The Law Reviews 2019) 459, 461.
Thawatchai Suvanpanich “Thailand” in Michael Pryles. (ed) Dispute Resolution in Asia (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2002) 369.
Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (6th edn, 1 August 2016) <https://siac.org.sg/siac-rules-2016>.
Noppramart Thammateeradaycho, "Emergency Interim Measures in Thai Arbitration" (Lexology, 4 December 2019) <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ee3ebd9f-c545-48f4-9778-cf7b3f833f38>.
Tennant Energy LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2018-54, Procedural Order 4, 27 February 2020 [166].
Thai Commercial Arbitration Rules 2000 (Thai Commercial Arbitration Office <https://www.thaichamber.org/public/themes/frontend/assets/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=/public/upload/file/document/0310231678413362.pdf>.
Sorawit Limparangsri, Samuel Seow and Paul Tan, “Arbitration in Thailand 2015; the Thai Arbitration Institute”, International Arbitration Asia (25 May 2015) <http://www.internationalarbitrationasia.com/arbitration-in-thailand-the-thai-arbitration-institute-2015/> (“In the absence of any provisions relating to the power of tribunals to issues such preliminary orders, section 16 of the Arbitration Act has been interpreted to imply that only preliminary orders issued by the courts would be legally enforceable.”).
TAI Arbitration Rules 2003 <https://tai.coj.go.th/th/content/category/detail/id/2196/cid/8226/iid/129360>.
Section 46 TAA. See generally, "Thai Court Approach to Legal Costs in Arbitration" (Watson Farley & Williams, 7 February 2022) <https://www.wfw.com/articles/thai-court-approach-to-legal-costs-in-arbitration/>. For a discussion on disclosures and access for experts under Article 60(2) of the THAC Rules, see Sections II.B and III.A.
James E Castello and Rami Chahine, "Enforcement of Interim Measures" (Global Arbitration Review, 17 May 2023) <https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-challenging-and-enforcing-arbitration-awards/3rd-edition/article/enforcement-of-interim-measures>; Born (n 3) 2610.
"The Supreme Court of Thailand Issues Judgement Endorsing the Use of SIAC Expedited Procedure" (Allen & Overy, 15 September 2022) <https://www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/news-and-insights/publications/the-supreme-court-of-thailand-issues-judgement-endorsing-the-use-of-siac-expedited-procedure>.
Alastair Henderson, "Commercial Arbitration in Thailand" (2009) 5 Asian International Arbitration Journal 46, 61.
Foreign Workers Administration Office, Notification of the Ministry of Labor Regarding the Prescription of the Prohibited Occupations for Foreigners (1 April 2020) <https://www.doe.go.th/prd/download/download_by_pool_file/62790>.
Asawaroj (n 38) 8 (“Facts concerning arbitration must be revealed in court proceedings, e.g., in actions for the setting aside of arbitral awards or for the enforcement of arbitral awards.”
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 THAC Journals
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
