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​ 

February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only
Read More
January 29, 2026
Following the recent enactment of a comprehensive legal framework addressing sexual harassment, Thailand has launched a fast-track judicial process enabling victims of online sexual harassment to obtain court orders suspending and removing obscene content from the internet. On January 26, 2026, the Office of the Judiciary introduced the “Take It Down” procedure through the Court Integral Online Service (CIOS) platform, providing victims with their first direct, expedited pathway to halt the spread of online content that violates the new legal provisions against sexual harassment. This new remedy stems from section 284/4 of the Penal Code, introduced through the Act Amending the Penal Code (No. 30) B.E. 2568, which took effect on December 30, 2025. Under section 284/4, an injured person or a competent official may petition the court to suspend dissemination of violating data and remove the data from computer systems within a court-specified period. The court may also direct system controllers, service providers, or competent authorities to carry out the order and report back within 15 days. Filing through the CIOS Platform The CIOS platform serves as the primary electronic channel for these petitions. Key features include: Individuals can file online without appearing in person and may submit petitions at any time the system is available. Users must complete digital identity verification via the ThaID application to access the CIOS. Petitions under section 284/4 are limited to requests to suspend or remove violating content. Claims for monetary damages must be pursued separately, including via separate proceedings or prefiling mediation. Streamlined Review Process The submission workflow is end-to-end electronic, and the system provides step-by-step guidance. After submission, court staff review the petition before presenting it to a judge for consideration. The court may conduct an online inquiry to obtain additional information, and in-person attendance is required only if deemed
Read More
January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More