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

May 31, 2013

Buying a House in a Land Development Project: Look Before You Leap

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Recently, consumer interest in purchasing residential homes in Thailand has skyrocketed. In response to this, developers have launched numerous residential development projects catering to both domestic and foreign purchasers. Consumers now have the opportunity to contemplate purchasing homes of varying quality while also factoring in developer reputation and risk. When thinking about buying a home in a land development project, there are a few major issues buyers should consider both before and after making the purchase.

Is the project protected under Thailand’s Land Development Act?

Under Section 4 of the Land Development Act of 2000, “land development” means the sale of land divided into sub-lots from one main lot of land or from several lots of adjoining land in return for property or benefit as remuneration if at least 10 sub-lots are sold. This includes projects where the land is divided into fewer than 10 sub-lots but subsequent divisions are made within three years, resulting in the combined land being at least 10 lots.

Buyers should note that a developer might seek to avoid compliance with the Act by dividing the land into less than 10 sub-lots, so that the project may not have to provide public facilities or services, such as roads, parks, or children’s playgrounds.

Is the project being completed as described in the contract or as in the developer’s advertising materials?

Advertisements purporting to provide services or public facilities are regarded as contractual obligations between the buyer and the developer (Section 11 of the Consumer Case Procedure Act of 2008). Therefore, the land developer must fulfill promises made in the house sale advertisements, as they are contractual terms.

Furthermore, the land developer must request a bank or financial institution to conclude a guarantee with the Land Development Commission. If the land developer fails to provide for public facilities or services, the bank or financial institution will pay the commission the amount specified in the guarantee, so the commission can spend it on the provision of those public facilities or services (Section 24 of the Land Development Act).

How will the public facilities or services be maintained both during and after purchase?

Sometimes, after developing a project, a land developer fails to maintain public facilities or services in good working condition. Thai law provides that buyers of at least half the sub-lots under a project can pass a resolution to establish a developed-estate juristic entity, which is registered with the land official and controlled by an executive committee and the buyers. The management of public facilities or services can then be transferred to this developed-estate juristic entity (Sections 44 and 45 of the Land Development Act) to ensure they are maintained effectively.

Will there be any issues related to the collection of common fees?

Once the developed-estate juristic entity is established, all buyers of the developed land become members. If there are any sub-lots that have not yet been sold or which are transferred back to the land developer, the land developer becomes a member of the developed-estate juristic entity (Section 47 the Land Development Act).

Buyers of developed land are liable to pay common fees for the management and maintenance of public facilities or services, and land developers are liable to pay common fees for sub-lots that have not been sold (Section 49 of the Land Development Act).

To enforce contractual obligations in case of default, the developed-estate juristic entity can file a civil claim against a buyer or land developer who fails to pay the common fees.

What will happen if there are manufacturing defects?

If defects are found before the transfer of ownership, the buyer should submit a written objection (preferably acknowledged by the developer or its representative’s signature) outlining the list of defects (with photos) and requesting the land developer to repair the defects within the prescribed contractual period. If the land developer fails to repair the defects or does so inadequately, then on or before the transfer date, the buyer should present objections and supporting evidence of those defects to the land officer, informing the officer that the transfer cannot proceed unless and until the defects have been fixed.

If the defects are discovered after ownership transfer, the land developer is likely contractually liable. Exceptions include: (1) if the buyer knew or would have known of the defects at the time of sale; (2) if the defects appear at the time of delivery and the buyer accepts the house without objection; and (3) if the house was sold by public auction. The law allows buyers to take action concerning liability for defects within one year from the date the defects are discovered (Sections 472, 473, and 474 of the Civil and Commercial Code).

What are the key steps before making a purchase?

Before buying a house in a land development project, buyers should study the project and the environment to determine whether the government has any plan to use the land or adjacent land or if the land could be subject to expropriation, such as for future transport projects.

Buyers should review the corporate land developer by considering its previous projects and its corporate and financial status. Buyers can also conduct due diligence on the developer’s authorized directors to determine whether they have the authority to sign the sale and purchase contract. This may include investigating whether the developer or its directors have been involved in previous consumer claims.

Finally, buyers should examine the land and the relevant title deeds and prior title rights to confirm whether the developer owns the land or has the right to use it with no risk of encumbrance.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 4, 2025
The growth of Vietnam’s vibrant digital economy offers tremendous potential but is also a driver of the persistent problem of online intellectual property (IP) infringement. The spectrum of issues faced by IP rights holders runs from copyright piracy on digital services (such as streaming and torrent sites) to the sale of counterfeit goods via e-commerce sites and social platforms to the misuse of rights through misleading use of trademarks. These infringements do not only eat into profits; they damage brand reputation and mislead consumers. As a result, site blocking and keyword blocking have become increasingly important components of the enforcement toolkit available in Vietnam. Legal Framework for Blocking Actions Site and keyword blocking in Vietnam is supported by a growing legal framework, particularly following the 2022 amendment to the IP Law. Prior to this, the legal basis for blocking was scattered across various laws, and internet service providers (ISPs) were only obligated to block access to infringing content upon official requests from authorities. The introduction of Article 198b under the amended IP Law marked a significant shift, establishing a clearer mechanism for rights holders to request site blocking directly. This provision obliges them to act upon valid takedown or blocking requests. In addition to the IP Law, other key legislation includes the Law on Information Technology, the Law on Cybersecurity, the Law on Advertising, and various decrees. Together, these laws provide a more structured and enforceable basis for blocking actions in Vietnam, though practical enforcement still depends on ISP cooperation and the clarity of the infringement evidence. Competent Authorities Previously, rights holders could pursue administrative actions through specialized inspectorates under the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, or the Vietnam E-Commerce and Digital Economy Agency (iDEA). However, due to a recent government restructuring,
May 28, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins attorneys in Vietnam have contributed the 2025 edition of Doing Business in Vietnam, a comprehensive Q&A-style resource from Thomson Reuters Practical Law that provides essential insights for companies navigating business operations in Vietnam. The guide presents a detailed overview of the country’s legal framework and regulatory environment, reflecting recent updates in Vietnamese legislation and practice. This annually updated guide offers key information on the following areas: Legal system: Structure of the Vietnamese judiciary and the role of codified law. Foreign investment: Conditions for market access, licensing requirements, foreign ownership restrictions, and investment incentives. Business vehicles: Formation and operation of legal entities, including limited liability companies, joint-stock companies, and representative offices. Employment: Employment contracts, social insurance, labor rights, and procedures for hiring foreign nationals. Tax: Overview of corporate income tax, personal income tax, value-added tax, and other tax obligations. Intellectual property: Procedures for protecting and enforcing patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other IP rights. Data protection: Compliance requirements under Vietnam’s data privacy laws, including the Personal Data Protection Decree. Competition law: Antitrust rules and regulatory oversight under the Law on Competition. Anti-bribery and corruption: Legal framework and enforcement practices aimed at curbing corrupt activities. E-commerce and digital business: Regulations governing online platforms, digital content, and cross-border services. Marketing and advertising: Laws and guidelines on advertising standards and consumer protection. Product regulation and liability: Safety requirements, product liability issues, and roles of relevant authorities. Doing Business in Vietnam is part of Practical Law’s global series of legal guides designed to support international practitioners and businesses. To access the most recent edition of the Vietnam guide, visit the Practical Law website and sign up for a free trial.
May 2, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the latest edition of Doing Business in Thailand, a Q&A-style guide from Thomson Reuters Practical Law that offers an overview of key legal considerations for companies operating in jurisdictions worldwide. The contribution outlines the country’s legal and regulatory framework for foreign investment and business operations and reflects the latest legislative developments. The chapter addresses the following core topics: Legal system: Structure of the courts and the codified nature of Thai law. Foreign investment: Business restrictions under the Foreign Business Act, sector-specific regulations, exchange control rules, and investment incentives. Business vehicles: Overview of partnerships, private and public limited companies, and other legal entities. Employment: Labor protections, employment contracts, foreign worker requirements, and termination procedures. Tax: Corporate and personal income tax, indirect taxes, and tax obligations for residents and non-residents. Intellectual property: Registration and enforcement of patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights. Data protection: Key provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act and related compliance obligations. Competition law: Regulatory framework under the Trade Competition Act. Anti-bribery and corruption: Relevant legislation and enforcement mechanisms. E-commerce and digital business: Legal regime for online transactions and digital platforms. Marketing and advertising: Consumer protection laws and regulations affecting advertising and marketing practices. Product regulation and liability: Safety standards, liability regimes, and roles of enforcement authorities. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The insurance and reinsurance guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the guide, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
April 29, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins recently assisted Bitmain, a leading manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware, in successful cancellation action lawsuits against BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks that were unlawfully registered by a local party in Indonesia. Background Founded in 2013, Bitmain is a leading manufacturer of digital currency mining servers, marketed under their BITMAIN and ANTMINER brands. The company has maintained a strong global market share, with customers in over 100 countries and regions. In Indonesia, Bitmain has held the BITMAIN trademark registration in classes 35, 36, 41, and 42 since 2018. However, the company was unable to register the trademark in other classes because a local party had already registered the mark in the desired classes. Bitmain also discovered that their ANTMINER brand had been registered by the same local party, which impeded Bitmain’s application to register the ANTMINER trademark in Indonesia. Bitmain had been using these trademarks and products worldwide long before the local party’s registration in Indonesia, and had also secured trademark registrations in various countries. However, the local party exploited Indonesia’s first-to-file principle, securing the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks before Bitmain could file. This was a classic example of trademark squatting, where a party registers a foreign trademark in a jurisdiction where the original owner has not yet filed, with the intent to profit from the brand’s success. Initial Approach Upon discovering that the local party had made these trademark applications, Bitmain found that one of these applications was still in the publication period. We advised and assisted Bitmain to file opposition against the application, but this opposition was subsequently refused because the local party had already obtained identical BITMAIN trademarks in other classes. Consequently, the application was registered in the Trademark Office database. Following the unfavorable opposition decision, we initially worked with Bitmain to seek a mutually