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​ 

April 30, 2026
Thailand’s Long-Term Resident (LTR) Visa regime offers an attractive immigration pathway for qualifying foreign nationals, providing a 10-year renewable permission to stay in Thailand. Following amendments under Board of Investment (BOI) Announcement No. Por. 3/2568 dated February 4, 2025, the regime now more explicitly accommodates property investment as a qualifying vehicle—a development of particular relevance to foreign nationals already considering real estate acquisitions in Thailand. The LTR Visa is available to several categories of applicants, including wealthy global citizens with global assets of at least USD 1 million, and wealthy pensioners aged 50 or older with an annual pension or fixed income of at least USD 40,000. Property as a Qualifying Investment For both categories, property investment is recognized as one of three eligible investment types alongside Thai government bonds (with at least five years remaining to maturity) and direct investments in Thai companies or approved venture capital or private equity vehicles. The minimum qualifying property investment is USD 500,000 for wealthy global citizens and USD 250,000 for wealthy pensioners. Eligible property types include freehold condominiums, buildings, or villas, as well as leasehold properties with a remaining lease term of at least 10 years. Health Coverage Requirement Beyond the investment threshold, applicants must demonstrate adequate health coverage. This requirement can be satisfied through a health insurance policy covering at least USD 50,000 in Thai medical expenses with at least 10 months of remaining coverage, evidence of social security benefits covering Thai medical costs, or a bank deposit of at least USD 100,000 retained for 12 months. Practical Considerations For foreign nationals already considering property acquisitions in prime residential markets—where investment values commonly meet or exceed the USD 500,000 threshold—the visa pathway effectively transforms a real estate purchase into a dual-purpose investment, combining asset ownership with long-term residence rights that
Read More
April 29, 2026
Is arbitration only as good as the arbitrator? Undoubtedly. Choosing an arbitrator is therefore one of the most pivotal decisions a party makes in the arbitration proceedings. In practice in Vietnam, many arbitration proceedings have been significantly prolonged because of multiple unsuccessful appointments arising from conflicts of interest, challenges by the opposing party, or subsequent unavailability. In other cases, additional expenses were incurred where appointed arbitrators were located far from the hearing venue or were unfamiliar with the arbitration language or applicable law. To preempt these issues and secure a more efficient and cost-effective appointment, this article proposes a practical, step-by-step approach to arbitrator selection. Step 1: Know Your Own Case At the outset, it is essential to develop a clear understanding of the dispute by addressing the following key considerations: Nature of the dispute: From which sector does it arise (e.g., construction, international trade, investment, banking and finance, technology, intellectual property)? Value and complexity: Is the dispute high or low in value? Does it involve multiple parties, multiple legal systems, or foreign elements? Is its crux related to multiple legal matters? Existing arbitration agreement: Does the agreement specify the seat, language, and governing law? If not, what would be appropriate considering the parties’ conduct and the applicable arbitration rules? Having clear answers to these questions in mind will help identify, from the outset, the core criteria for selecting an appropriate arbitrator. Step 2: Form Your Candidate Pool Based on the understanding developed in Step 1, a candidate pool should be formed through a structured and careful process: Researching Arbitrator Profiles At the initial stage, comprehensive research should be conducted via reliable sources to ensure both accuracy and diversity of candidates. Official sources, such as lists of arbitrators published by arbitral institutions, most notably the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre
Read More
April 7, 2026
Real estate law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins provided the chapter on Vietnam for Practical Law’s Commercial Real Estate Global Guide 2026, a comparative jurisdictional guide in Q&A format giving a high-level overview of real estate investment structures, restrictions on foreign ownership, and other important issues of real estate law. The main topics include the following: Real estate investment Title to real estate Sale of real estate Real estate tax Real estate finance Real estate leases Planning and development controls To read the Vietnam chapter, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
Read More