In the intricate world of international trade, maritime transport is a cornerstone, facilitating the movement of goods across vast distances. Carriers engaged in this industry enter into contracts of carriage, committing to transport goods by sea from one country to another in exchange for freight. These contracts typically include terms and conditions related to the carriage of goods, liability, delivery obligations, and, critically, dispute resolution mechanisms.

The key element in this industry is the Bill of Lading (B/L), a pivotal document that serves as a receipt, a document of title, and evidence of a carriage contract. B/L often includes the choice of court clause, which designates a specific court for resolving disputes.

Maritime transport disputes frequently arise from issues such as cargo damage or loss, delays, and disagreements over freight charges. The international nature of maritime transport complicates these disputes, often involving parties from different jurisdictions with varying legal frameworks. Understanding the implications of the choice of court clauses in B/Ls under Thai law is crucial for businesses engaged in maritime trade with Thailand.

The Bill of Lading in Thailand

B/L is an essential document in maritime transport that confirms the receipt of goods for shipment and outlines the terms of the carriage contract. It can also act as a transferable document of title, allowing ownership of the goods to be transferred during transit. For businesses involved in maritime transport with Thailand, understanding how B/Ls are treated under Thai law is essential for managing disputes and ensuring smooth operations.

Legal Framework

In Thailand, the primary legislation governing B/Ls is the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, B.E. 2534 (1991) (CGSA). This Act aligns with international conventions, regulating the rights and obligations of parties involved in the carriage of goods by sea. According to Section 3 of the CGSA, a B/L is defined as a document issued by the carrier to the shipper as evidence of a contract of carriage and receipt of goods, with the carrier undertaking to deliver the goods to the rightful recipient upon surrender of the document.

Roles of a Bill of Lading

1. Evidence of Contract: It confirms that the freight forwarder will transport the goods to the specified destination and deliver them to the consignee under the terms of the carriage contract.
2. Receipt of Goods: It acts as a receipt, indicating that the carrier has received the goods, detailing their quantity and specifics.
3. Document of Title: It represents ownership of the goods, allowing the holder to claim the goods or transfer ownership to another party.

Jurisdictional Challenges and Court Choices

Disputes involving B/Ls often entail jurisdictional challenges, particularly when the choice of court clause specifies a foreign court. Such clauses aim to provide clarity and predictability but can complicate enforcement if the designated court is outside Thailand.

Thai Jurisdiction

The Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IPITC), which is the specialized court established under the Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, B.E. 2539 (1996), has jurisdiction with regard to international trade and intellectual property disputes, including those arising from maritime contracts. This specialized court ensures that aforesaid disputes are resolved efficiently in accordance with international standards and procedures to lead the party to justice.

Enforceability of Choice of Court Clauses in B/L

Thai courts generally respect the choice of court clauses in B/Ls. However, enforcing these clauses can be challenging if the chosen jurisdiction is outside Thailand. The enforceability depends on factors such as compliance with international treaties and Thai legal standards.

An illustrative case is Supreme Court Judgment No. 3882/2006. In this case, the B/L specified the Hong Kong City Court for dispute resolution. However, the IPITC in Thailand was deemed competent to adjudicate the matter. The dispute involved damages for the loss or damage of goods during the sea transport party's nationality between Thailand and Spain. The Supreme Court ruled that, since the contract of carriage was executed in Thailand and Thai law was applicable, the IPITC had jurisdiction to consider and resolve the dispute. This decision highlights the authority of Thai courts to handle disputes even when a B/L specifies a foreign court, especially when significant aspects of the case are connected to Thailand, such as the place occurring ground of dispute, domicile of the party, or the place of the majority evidence for consideration and resolution the case as same the competent court.

Conclusion

Understanding the role of the Bill of Lading under Thai law and the associated jurisdictional issues is crucial for effectively managing maritime disputes. While B/Ls are essential documents in international trade, the disputes arising from them can be complex, particularly when jurisdictional clauses are involved. Thai legislation, including the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, provides a robust framework for resolving such disputes. The Supreme Court's decision in Judgment No. 3882/2006 underscores the capability of Thai courts to adjudicate maritime disputes, ensuring that legal resolution remains accessible and consistent with Thai legal standards.