You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

April 2, 2024

Applicability of Foreign Law in Thailand Aircraft Lease Agreements

Subscribe to Updates
The Legal Industry Reviews

Aircraft lease agreements are commonly governed by the law of England and Wales, New York, or another common-law jurisdiction. This article examines the challenges of applying these and other foreign laws to an aircraft lease dispute in Thailand.

The applicability of foreign law in Thailand is subject to the Conflict of Laws Act B.E. 2481 (1938). Section 8 of the Conflict of Laws Act states, “Whenever the law of a foreign country which is to govern is not proved to the satisfaction of the court, the internal law of Thailand shall apply.” According to this section, the burden of proof is on the party that claims the foreign law. The claiming party must prove to the court the existence of the foreign law and how the law applies.

However, in aircraft lease disputes, especially those that involve seizing or repossessing aircraft, generally only Thai law will apply. Seizing or repossessing an aircraft involves Thai government authorities such as the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT) and the Airports of Thailand (AOT), among others, and these authorities will only comply with Thai law.

Moreover, foreign court judgments are not enforceable in Thailand. This means that any action to seize or repossess an aircraft in Thailand must be initiated in Thailand and using Thai law. Foreign court judgments, however, can be used as evidence and may be helpful in convincing the CAAT or court that the lessor is entitled to repossess an aircraft, and in proving damages.

The Thai laws relevant in a hostile repossession or seizure action include the Air Navigation Act, the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC), and the Civil Proceedings Code (CPC). The CCC provides guidelines on contract termination and the rights of parties in lease agreements. Specifically, it outlines the conditions under which a lessor can terminate a lease agreement due to lessee default, including nonpayment or breach of lease terms. Parties can agree differently from the CCC on the grounds for termination or expiration of a lease agreement, which would lead to the seizure and repossession of the aircraft, if the agreement does not contradict Thai “public order or good morals.”

The CPC sets out the mechanism to apply for injunctions necessary for aircraft seizure. The Air Navigation Act and implementing regulations state the requirements for aircraft deregistration necessary for repossession.

While foreign law is usually inapplicable to seizing or repossessing an aircraft, it can potentially be beneficial in terms of compensation for damages. Thai courts generally do not award the full compensation claimed for, particularly when it comes to punitive damages. Instead, they typically award actual damages, which may not cover the full extent of losses, unless the claimant can clearly prove the actual damage suffered.

In sum, navigating the legal complexities of aircraft repossession and seizure in Thailand requires a deep understanding of both international and local laws. Understanding the application of Thai law is crucial for parties involved in aviation disputes. By seeking legal expertise and leveraging foreign court judgments as evidence, parties can navigate this intricate legal terrain more clearly and effectively.

 

This article was first published in the April 2024 Thailand edition of The Legal Industry Reviews, an international platform that publishes news and applied law updates from industry-leading law firms in about 30 jurisdictions worldwide. To read the full aviation contribution, or to browse the complete issue, please visit The Legal Industry Reviews website.

Related Professionals

Industries

Aviation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 23, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok-based aviation specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This annual guide examines the key legal issues impacting aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers in nearly 40 jurisdictions worldwide. In addition to the Thailand chapter, Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Vietnam chapter to this year’s edition. The Thailand chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal framework governing all aspects of aircraft sale and purchase, aircraft and engine leasing, and aircraft debt finance. Some topics covered include: sale and lease agreement terms taxation lease registration and enforcement lease assignment/novation insurance and reinsurance debt structuring securities liens The guide also examines other matters with practical implications for the aviation industry’s day-to-day operations. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 23, 2026
Aviation law experts from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Vietnam offices have prepared the Vietnam chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2026 from Chambers and Partners. Covering nearly 40 jurisdictions worldwide, the guide addresses key legal considerations for aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers. Alongside the Vietnam chapter, Tilleke & Gibbins also provided the Thailand chapter for this year’s edition. The Vietnam chapter delivers detailed insights into the legal environment affecting aircraft sale and purchase, aircraft and engine leasing, and aircraft debt finance. Some of the topics it examines include: sale and lease agreement terms taxation lease registration and enforcement lease assignment/novation insurance and reinsurance debt structuring securities liens The guide also covers other issues influencing the day-to-day activities of aviation industry participants in Vietnam. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative analysis of practical legal matters impacting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and relevant procedures across leading jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
Read More
December 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create
Read More