The Jurisdiction of The Administrative Court to Review Arbitral Awards: A Case Study of The Arbitration in Administrative Contracts

Abstract

This article examines Administrative Court jurisdiction to review arbitral awards. To address this question, Administrative Court jurisdiction is compared with courts with jurisdiction over administrative contract disputes in other legal systems
as well as the scope of relevant authority of the Administrative Court and Court of Justice under the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002).

A review of the laws and judicial procedures of the French, American, and British legal systems indicate that the latter was wholly tied to public policy interpretation. Conflicting opinions exist on whether arbitral award recognition or enforcement is contrary to public policy: either the Administrative Court may solely review the mandatory part or the Court may also review its award with reasons to determine whether arbitration award recognition or enforcement is against public policy. Therefore, this is an important factor in determining vaguely defined jurisdiction scope. Identical interpretation of public policy in the legal system of Thailand makes Administrative Court and Court of Justice arbitration review jurisdiction differ.

These findings suggest that the Administrative Court must review the arbitral award if an award contradicts public policy, but such authority must be limited. Interpretation of public policy, if the court decision may by order be set aside or the award refused, should be narrowly interpreted out of respectfor the sacred principle of intent of the parties.