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​ 

December 25, 2025
On December 11, 2025, Vietnam’s National Assembly issued Resolution No. 254/2025/QH15 (Resolution No. 254) to address practical difficulties encountered in implementing the Law on Land 2024. The resolution provides specific mechanisms and policies to resolve issues related to land allocation, land leasing, and conversion of land-use purposes, while also addressing land valuation principles, timing of information collection, and land valuation methods. The resolution takes effect on January 1, 2026. Key provisions affecting investors are discussed below. Land Use Terms for Transferred Investment Projects The National Assembly has addressed situations where the remaining term of a transferred investment project is insufficient for the transferee’s business or financial plans. Resolution No. 254, along with the Law on Investment 2025, introduces aligned regulatory solutions. Under the Law on Investment 2025 (4th version submitted to the National Assembly for promulgation), if an investment project implemented prior to March 1, 2026, has been transferred and the transferor holds a Land Use Rights Certificate, has fulfilled all land-related financial obligations, and is not subject to termination, the competent authority may determine a new operating term if the remaining operating term does not meet the transferee investor’s financial or business plan. This adjustment occurs when approving or adjusting the investment policy or issuing or amending the investment registration certificate. The revised operating term is calculated from the date of the approval or issuance and must not exceed the statutory maximum of 70 years for projects in economic zones and 50 years for projects outside economic zones. Resolution No. 254 also permits adjustment of the land use term for transferred investment projects involving land, provided that the transferee investor pays additional land rent in accordance with applicable law, thereby ensuring consistency with the Law on Investment 2025. Land Rent Payment Options Resolution No. 254 generally expands the
Read More
December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
Read More
December 16, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to Infrastructure and Construction in Southeast Asia, a comparative guide developed by Drew Network Asia (DNA). The publication brings together insights from leading ASEAN law firms to address common legal and practical issues faced by participants in the construction and engineering sector across the region. Covering nine major Southeast Asian jurisdictions, the guide provides concise answers to frequently encountered questions relating to infrastructure and construction projects. Topics addressed include the regulatory environment, procurement practices, project structuring, risk allocation, contracting terms, dispute resolution mechanisms, and the enforcement of arbitral awards. Each jurisdictional chapter follows a consistent question-and-answer format, enabling readers to compare legal approaches and market practices across countries. This structure highlights both areas of convergence and key differences between jurisdictions, supporting more informed decision-making in cross-border projects and investments. While the guide offers a practical regional overview, it also underscores that legal frameworks and market practices vary significantly between jurisdictions and may be shaped by local principles and industry norms. Readers seeking jurisdiction-specific advice are encouraged to contact the practitioners listed at the end of each chapter. The full guide is available for download through the button below or directly from the DNA website.
Read More
December 15, 2025
On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam officially passed the amended Law on Construction, marking the culmination of a multiyear reform process aimed at modernizing Vietnam’s construction legal framework, streamlining administrative procedures, and aligning with digital transformation and sustainability goals. The amended law, which replaces the current Law on Construction No. 50/2014/QH13, will take effect on July 1, 2026. The Ministry of Construction (MOC) is also preparing several guiding decrees covering project classification, digital submissions and database management, and technical standards for design documentation. Key Changes in the Amended Law While the executed version of the amended Law on Construction has yet to be released to the public, reports have confirmed that it includes the following key changes introduced under the latest draft submitted by the MOC in September: Project classification: The amended Law on Construction classifies construction projects by investment form (public, PPP, business investment, and others), which aligns with the Law on Public Investment, the Law on Investment, and the Law on PPP Investment. This reduces regulatory overlap and clarifies responsibilities. Project preparation and appraisal: The requirement for prefeasibility reports for business investment projects is abolished, as this requirement is now governed by the Law on Investment and the Law on Public Investment. This change shortens the preparation timeline and reduces duplication of procedures. In addition, the authority’s appraisal is streamlined to a single feasibility stage. Also eliminated is the appraisal process conducted following basic design approval, shifting more responsibility to investors and consultants, with targeted post-audit mechanisms for high-risk projects. Construction permits: One of the most significant new changes of the amended Law on Construction is the expansion of exemptions from construction permit requirements to the following eight distinct groups of construction works: State-secret works, emergency or urgent constructions, works under special public investment
Read More