THAILAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Pisut Attakamol, Wasin Lertwalaipong, Pumma Doungrutana and Kosit Prasitveroj, Baker McKenzie
exception under Section 52 of the ACPA, are regarded as matters affecting public order. Conclusion The current trend suggests that the Administrative Court has generally moved towards a more restrained approach when reviewing arbitral awards arising from administrative contract disputes. In particular, the Supreme Administrative Court has emphasised that the public order violation ground should be interpreted narrowly and should not be used as a vehicle for re- examining the merits of a dispute. Nevertheless, the limits of judicial review remain an evolving area of Thai law. Certain issues – particularly those relating to limitation periods, public services and other matters considered to affect the public interest – may still attract closer scrutiny from the Administrative Court. As a result, the precise boundaries of the public order exception have yet to be fully defined.
For investors, project sponsors and contractors involved in projects with state entities, arbitration remains a viable and important dispute resolution mechanism. However, parties should remain mind - ful that administrative-law principles may continue to influence the outcome of both arbitral proceedings and subsequent court challenges. Careful consideration of the Administrative Court’s developing jurisprudence should therefore form part of any dispute resolution strategy relating to an administrative contract. A single error on an issue that the Administrative Court regards as implicating public order may ultimately result in an otherwise favourable arbitral award being set aside.
1018 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook