A comparative analysis on the enforceability of knock-for- knock indemnities in Thailand and the United Kingdom

The standard form of oilfield service contracts, such as the Leading Oil and Gas Competitiveness (LOGIC) model, is widely used in Southeast Asia including Thailand. Under the LOGIC model form, the allocation of risk is set out by way of knock-for-knock indemnities where each party will indemnify the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Wan Zahari, Wan Mohd Zulhafiz
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Faculty of Law, University of Malaya 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:http://irep.iium.edu.my/57632/1/A%20Comparative%20Analysis%20on%20the%20Enforceability%20of%20Knock-for-Knock%20inThailand%20and%20UK.pdf
http://irep.iium.edu.my/57632/
http://e-journal.um.edu.my/public/article-view.php?id=20368
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia
Language: English
id my.iium.irep.57632
record_format dspace
spelling my.iium.irep.576322017-11-05T17:27:17Z http://irep.iium.edu.my/57632/ A comparative analysis on the enforceability of knock-for- knock indemnities in Thailand and the United Kingdom Wan Zahari, Wan Mohd Zulhafiz K Law (General) The standard form of oilfield service contracts, such as the Leading Oil and Gas Competitiveness (LOGIC) model, is widely used in Southeast Asia including Thailand. Under the LOGIC model form, the allocation of risk is set out by way of knock-for-knock indemnities where each party will indemnify the other for bodily injury or death of his employees and loss or damage to his property, regardless of negligence. However, under the Thai Unfair Contract Terms Act B.E. 2540 (A.D. 1997) (TUCTA), a contracting party is not allowed to restrict or exclude liabilities pertaining to bodily injury and death arising from his negligence. This restriction appears to be an attempt to hamper risk allocation in oilfield service contracts. On the other hand, the UK Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) has a similar restriction. However, by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in Farstad Supply A/S v Enviroco Ltd [2011] UKSC 16, the knock-for-knock indemnities could be enforceable despite the restriction. Nevertheless, the knock-for-knock indemnities will be subject to the reasonableness test under UCTA. Thus, it could be argued that in spite of the restriction under TUCTA, the knock-for-knock indemnities in standard form oilfield service contracts e.g. LOGIC could still be enforceable in Thailand, subject to certain limitations. This note addresses the issue of enforceability of knock-for-knock indemnities pertaining to bodily injury and death in oilfield service contracts in Thailand.The methodology employed in this research will be a comparative analysis which will be carried out in a descriptive, analytic and prescriptive manner. Faculty of Law, University of Malaya 2017-06 Article REM application/pdf en http://irep.iium.edu.my/57632/1/A%20Comparative%20Analysis%20on%20the%20Enforceability%20of%20Knock-for-Knock%20inThailand%20and%20UK.pdf Wan Zahari, Wan Mohd Zulhafiz (2017) A comparative analysis on the enforceability of knock-for- knock indemnities in Thailand and the United Kingdom. Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, 44 (1). pp. 33-42. ISSN 0126-6322 http://e-journal.um.edu.my/public/article-view.php?id=20368
institution Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia
building IIUM Library
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider International Islamic University Malaysia
content_source IIUM Repository (IREP)
url_provider http://irep.iium.edu.my/
language English
topic K Law (General)
spellingShingle K Law (General)
Wan Zahari, Wan Mohd Zulhafiz
A comparative analysis on the enforceability of knock-for- knock indemnities in Thailand and the United Kingdom
description The standard form of oilfield service contracts, such as the Leading Oil and Gas Competitiveness (LOGIC) model, is widely used in Southeast Asia including Thailand. Under the LOGIC model form, the allocation of risk is set out by way of knock-for-knock indemnities where each party will indemnify the other for bodily injury or death of his employees and loss or damage to his property, regardless of negligence. However, under the Thai Unfair Contract Terms Act B.E. 2540 (A.D. 1997) (TUCTA), a contracting party is not allowed to restrict or exclude liabilities pertaining to bodily injury and death arising from his negligence. This restriction appears to be an attempt to hamper risk allocation in oilfield service contracts. On the other hand, the UK Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) has a similar restriction. However, by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in Farstad Supply A/S v Enviroco Ltd [2011] UKSC 16, the knock-for-knock indemnities could be enforceable despite the restriction. Nevertheless, the knock-for-knock indemnities will be subject to the reasonableness test under UCTA. Thus, it could be argued that in spite of the restriction under TUCTA, the knock-for-knock indemnities in standard form oilfield service contracts e.g. LOGIC could still be enforceable in Thailand, subject to certain limitations. This note addresses the issue of enforceability of knock-for-knock indemnities pertaining to bodily injury and death in oilfield service contracts in Thailand.The methodology employed in this research will be a comparative analysis which will be carried out in a descriptive, analytic and prescriptive manner.
format Article
author Wan Zahari, Wan Mohd Zulhafiz
author_facet Wan Zahari, Wan Mohd Zulhafiz
author_sort Wan Zahari, Wan Mohd Zulhafiz
title A comparative analysis on the enforceability of knock-for- knock indemnities in Thailand and the United Kingdom
title_short A comparative analysis on the enforceability of knock-for- knock indemnities in Thailand and the United Kingdom
title_full A comparative analysis on the enforceability of knock-for- knock indemnities in Thailand and the United Kingdom
title_fullStr A comparative analysis on the enforceability of knock-for- knock indemnities in Thailand and the United Kingdom
title_full_unstemmed A comparative analysis on the enforceability of knock-for- knock indemnities in Thailand and the United Kingdom
title_sort comparative analysis on the enforceability of knock-for- knock indemnities in thailand and the united kingdom
publisher Faculty of Law, University of Malaya
publishDate 2017
url http://irep.iium.edu.my/57632/1/A%20Comparative%20Analysis%20on%20the%20Enforceability%20of%20Knock-for-Knock%20inThailand%20and%20UK.pdf
http://irep.iium.edu.my/57632/
http://e-journal.um.edu.my/public/article-view.php?id=20368
_version_ 1643615186306727936