Increasing access to justice in Thai competition law cases through third-party litigation funding
Keywords:competition law, access to justice, doctrines of maintenance and champerty, EU competition law, third-party litigation funding
Cases pursued with support from third-party litigation funding for the purpose of earning a profit from a share of the capital or the lawsuit outcome are prohibited in Thai courts as actions contrary to 1) public order or good morals and agreements of such nature would be null and void; 2) underlying principles of the Act Promulgating the Criminal Procedure Code, BE 2477 (1934) prohibiting evaluations of cases by allowing self-interest to influence their outcomes; and 3) doctrines of maintenance and champerty, as third parties investing in a case are likely to take any action in favor of maximizing returns for themselves rather than the real victim. Nevertheless, third-party litigation funding in competition litigation cases, normally affecting a broader population, is widely recognized by many jurisdictions in the European Union (EU) and considered a mechanism for increasing access to justice. This article will help explain how third-party litigation funding may increase access to justice in Thai competition law cases.
Arbitration Rules, Art. No. 11(7) of 2021
Deffains, B., & Desrieux, C. (2015). To litigate or not to litigate? The impacts of third-party financing on litigation. International Review of Law and Economics, 43(1), 178-189.
Faure, M.G., & De Mot, Jef P.B. (2012). Comparing Third Party Financing of Litigation and Legal Expenses Insurance. Journal of Law, Economics and Policy, 8(3), 1-44.
Glickman, D.R. (2016). Embracing Third-Party Litigation Finance. Florida State University Law Review, 43(3), 1043-1069.
Gomez, M. A. (2015). Crowdfunded justice: on the potential benefits and challenges of crowdfunding as a litigation financing tool. University of San Francisco Law Review, 49(2), 307-334.
Levi, L. (2017). The Weaponized Lawsuit Against the Media: Litigation Funding as a New Threat to Journalism. American University Law Review, 66(3), 761-828.
Lianos, I. (2009). ‘Judging’ Economists: Economic Expertise in Competition Law Litigation-A European View. Economists: Economic Expertise in Competition Law Litigation-A European View (CLES Working Paper Series 1/2009, 01-09). University College of London, Centre for Law and Economics. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1468502
Ng, J.F. (2010). The Role of the Doctrines of Champerty and Maintenance in Arbitration. Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, 76(2), 208-213.
Peyer, S. (2015). The antitrust damages directive – much ado about nothing?. In R. Cisotta and M. Marquis (Eds.) Litigation and arbitration in EU competition law (p.p. 33-46). Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shannon, V.A. (2015). Harmonizing third-party litigation funding regulation. Cardozo Law Review, 36(3), 861-912.
Sirikanjana, N. (2018). Problems of interpreting private action provisions under the Thailand Trade Competition Act. In A. Tungnirun, V. Malsukhum, and P. Chongpaisansakul (Eds.) Laws and Economy (pp. 166-197). Bangkok, TH: October Printing. [in Thai]
Stroble, J.J., & Welikson, L. (2020). Third-Party Litigation Funding: A Review of Recent Industry Developments. Defense Counsel Journal, 87(1), 1-18.
Szilágyi, P. (2013). Private Enforcement of Competition Law and Stand-alone Actions in Hungary. SZILÁGYI PÁL: Private Enforcement of Competition Law and Stand-alone Actions in Hungary. Global Competition Litigation Review, 6(3), 136-142.
UK Trucks Claim Limited v Stellantis N.V. (formerly Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.) and Others, 1282/7/7/18, 18 May 2018.
ข้อบังคับสภาทนายความว่าด้วยมรรยาททนายความ พ.ศ. 2529
พระราชบัญญัติแก้ไขเพิ่มเติมประมวลกฎหมายวิธีพิจารณาความแพ่ง (ฉบับที่ 26) พ.ศ. 2558
พระราชบัญญัติการแข่งขันทางการค้า พ.ศ. 2560
พระราชบัญญัติทนายความ พ.ศ. 2528