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

July 7, 2017

Condominium Disputes: Concerns for Joint Owners

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Condominiums have long been one of the most popular properties for people living in Thailand’s big cities. The different units in a condominium are individually owned, while common properties, such as lobby areas or swimming pools, are jointly owned by the owners of individual condominium units.

Unfortunately, disputes among joint owners (the owners of units in the building of each condominium) or between joint owners and the condominium juristic person are sometimes unavoidable. Therefore, it is prudent for joint owners to know and understand laws and regulations related to common condominium disputes.

Exemption of Court Filing Fees in Consumer Cases

Cases between condominium joint owners and a property developer or a condominium juristic person are regarded as consumer cases. Where joint owners sue property developers for breach of contract in delivering incomplete or defective units, the joint owners (considered to be consumers) are exempt from court filing fees according to the Thai Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008).

If condominium juristic persons sue joint owners for unpaid expenses from providing common services and maintaining/managing common property (normally known as “common fees”), the condominium juristic persons may sometimes argue that they should be exempt from paying court filing fees as well, since they are not property developers.

Under the Thai Consumer Case Procedure Act, only consumers or persons assigned to file a claim on their behalf are exempt from court filing fees. Condominium juristic persons are considered by the Appellate Court to be business operators and service providers rather than consumers because they are paid a common fee to maintain the condominium building and common property for joint owners. Thus, condominium juristic persons filing claims against joint owners will be required to pay court fees.

It should also be noted that claims for common fees must be filed by the condominium juristic person within five years from the default date.

Debt Clearance Certificate

Under the Thai Condominium Law, joint owners must jointly pay common fees. Previously, condominium juristic persons could refuse to issue a debt clearance certificate for joint owners failing to pay such fees. This would prevent them from registering title transfers with the local Land Office, which requires a debt clearance certificate for the transfer of condominium unit titles. Without the issuance of this certificate, buyers purchasing units via public auction would then have to shoulder the unfair burden of paying outstanding common fees in order to complete the registration of title transfer.

Section 309 quarter was added to the Civil Procedure Code on November 16, 2015, to provide better protection for buyers of condominium units by public auction. Under this section, debt clearance certificates are no longer required for the sale of units by public auction.

Before the sale of any unit by public auction, the executing officer will notify the condominium juristic person to report any outstanding common fees within 30 days from the date of receiving the notice. After the sale, the officer must set aside proceeds from the sale to pay for any outstanding fees to the condominium juristic person (which will have priority before the mortgage creditor).

A competent officer will then register the title transfer for the buyer without requiring a debt clearance certificate. Buyers from public auction therefore no longer have to be responsible for unpaid common fees.

Common Fees

Another critical concern for condominium joint owners involves situations where the condominium juristic person cuts electricity or water, or refuses to hand over key cards to force payment of common fees.

Thailand’s Supreme Court has held that condominium juristic persons can only compel joint owners to pay unpaid common fees by filing a claim with the court. Since joint owners maintain ownership over their personal property and share ownership with the juristic person over the common property in the condominium, they have a right to use the common property. The juristic person cannot obstruct joint owners’ use of common property to compel payment of common fees, and courts will likely view these tactics as wrongful acts against joint owners.

Furthermore, the Thai Supreme Court has ruled that a previous regulation issued to exempt property developers from paying the common fees of unsold units is void, and developers must be responsible for paying the common fees for the units that have not been sold.

There are many potential legal issues that may arise between condominium joint owners and juristic persons. Each party should ensure compliance with their respective duties to avoid potential disputes. Joint owners should learn and understand their rights and responsibilities and comply with the condominium bylaws and seek legal advice when disputes are unavoidable.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Real Estate

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 26, 2025
Thailand’s consumer protection authorities have strengthened oversight of residential leasing businesses following numerous complaints about unfair lease terms, including unjustified deposit forfeitures and excessive utility charges. The Contract Committee of Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board issued the Notification of the Contract Committee Re: The Stipulation of Residential Property Leasing as a Contract-Controlled Business B.E. 2568 (2025), published in the Government Gazette on June 6, 2025. The notification becomes effective on September 4, 2025, and repeals the prior notification issued in 2019. The notification prescribes two types of standard residential lease contracts: short-term residential lease contracts (for leases of not more than three years) and long-term residential lease contracts (for leases of more than three years up to 30 years or for the lessee’s lifetime). However, use of these standard contract forms is not compulsory, and parties may use any form as long as the terms do not contradict the notification’s requirements. Expanded Scope The notification expands the scope of enforcement to include any lessor with at least three residential units, while the 2019 notification applies only to businesses leasing five or more residential units. Hotels and dormitory operators are excluded, as they are regulated under other specific laws. Residential lease contracts entered into under the 2019 notification will remain valid and enforceable until the expiration of the contract. Any residential lease contract executed from September 4, 2025, onward must comply with the new notification. The notification also expressly extends its applicability to lease contracts made through online platforms. Electronically executed lease contracts must comply with the required and prohibited terms specified in the notification as well as applicable laws governing electronic transactions in Thailand. Mandatory Terms and Conditions Residential lease contracts must contain clearly legible Thai text no smaller than two millimeters in size and no more
Read More
August 22, 2025
On August 12, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Environment submitted a draft law amending several provisions of the Land Law 2024 (“Draft Amended Land Law” or “Draft”) for government consultation and public comment. The Draft primarily aims to address three controversial issues in Vietnam’s land regime concerning (i) land pricing, (ii) land clearance, and (iii) the allocation of land outside auctions, following policy set out by Resolution 18-NQ/TW and the newly adopted Resolution 69-NQ/TW on land governance modernization. Land pricing is potentially one of the most important areas among the proposed reforms. The Draft, however, has notably not addressed a major concern recently raised by the public: When a project has been allocated or leased land, but the relevant authority has not yet issued the land-price decision, a “supplemental charge” continues to accrue for the entire waiting period. Under current rules, this charge is calculated at 5.4% per year on the ultimately determined land-use fee or land rent, materially shifting project economics and pricing risks to developers or end-buyers. Core Reforms on Land Pricing The Draft Amended Land Law sets out a number of reforms on land pricing, including the following: Land price tables: The Draft maintains provincial land price tables but clarifies the scope of application: They are used to determine land-related financial obligations of land users and compensation when the state recovers land; the government will detail the adjustment coefficient regime, ratios for land-use fee calculation by land type/user/form, and deductible infrastructure costs. Provincial people’s committees will continue to issue land price tables every five years, effective from January 1 of the first year in the cycle, with authority to supplement within the cycle as necessary. In provinces with cadastral maps and digital land price databases, the tables may be established down to the land-parcel level,
Read More