{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.008375209380234505, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.096938775510204, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards on the Ground of Public Policy under the Law of Thailand: An Excessive Judicial Intervention?

This article explores how the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court have interpreted and applied the concept of public policy for the setting aside or non-enforcement of arbitration awards. It is found that the courts’ approach to the interpretation of the public policy defence appears to be broader than the approach that courts in foreign jurisdictions use in the context of international commercial arbitrations. The current approach seems to be that Thai courts will draw the line between questions of fact and questions of law, whereby only questions of fact are not subject to judicial review. This means that any errors made by arbitral tribunals in deciding questions of law may result in the arbitration awards being set aside or refused for enforcement by the courts on the ground of public policy. The author then concludes that this broad ambit of the public policy defence can be seen as an excessive judicial intervention in arbitration which may undermine the fundamental objectives of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.