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 3, 2025
Thailand’s Civil Court has issued a regulation targeting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of pleadings and other documents submitted to the court. Effective November 17, 2025, the regulation aligns with September 2025 guidance from the president of the Supreme Court, and aims to safeguard accuracy, transparency, and public confidence in civil adjudication. The regulation applies to all parties submitting pleadings or any documents to the Civil Court that are prepared using AI tools or contain AI-generated content. It subjects AI used for these purposes to strict requirements on verification, disclosure, and accountability. Core Obligations The regulation imposes four principal obligations: Lawyers who use AI remain subject to duties of honesty, responsibility to the court, professional standards, and legal ethics, including the duty to assess the appropriateness of the AI tool for the work. Parties and lawyers must verify the accuracy and completeness of all facts, legal provisions, and citations in AI-generated content before submission. Parties and lawyers must disclose to the court any AI-generated content by clearly marking the beginning and end of the AI-generated portion with prescribed statements (see below). Additionally, a certification confirming the use of AI must be provided at the end of the pleading or document, stating that AI was used for certain portions and that the party has reviewed and certifies the accuracy of factual and legal content. Parties and lawyers bear the same full legal and ethical responsibility for AI-generated content as they do for personally authored documents; they cannot evade responsibility or avoid liability by citing AI-related errors. Likewise, parties must ensure that any AI-generated content is truthful, accurate, and unbiased. Prescribed Disclosure Language Each instance of AI-generated content must be preceded by the statement “[The following content was prepared using artificial intelligence]” and must end with “[End
Read More
November 28, 2025
On November 26, 2025, the government of Vietnam issued Resolution No. 8/2025/NQ-CP to extend and expand the pilot program allowing Vietnamese citizens who meet certain conditions to gamble at three integrated casino resorts in Vietnam: Corona Resorts & Casino Phu Quoc (An Giang Province) – Effective immediately, and continuing an ongoing pilot program that started in 2019. The Grand Casino Ho Tram (Ho Chi Minh City) – New pilot program for five years starting November 26, 2025. Van Don Integrated Casino & Tourism Complex (Quang Ninh Province) – New pilot program for five years from the date the casino receives its license. The pilot program was originally established under Decree No. 03/2017/ND-CP on casino business, which also sets out the specific eligibility conditions for Vietnamese citizens. After the pilot period, these projects must stop allowing Vietnamese players until the government issues further decisions. This expansion of the pilot program comes after Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) released a draft decree earlier this year proposing significant changes to the regulatory framework governing casino operations. These revisions, which focus on increasing fiscal contributions from local players and strengthening compliance obligations for casino operators nationwide, are detailed below. Proposed Increase in Casino Entry Fees for Vietnamese Players The draft decree increases the entry fees applicable to Vietnamese citizens permitted to play at casinos. Under the current regulations, Vietnamese players are required to pay an entry fee of VND 1 million (approx. USD 38) for 24 consecutive hours or VND 25 million (approx. USD 950) per month. The draft decree proposes increasing these fees to VND 2.5 million (approx. USD 95) for 24 consecutive hours and VND 50 million (approx. USD 1,900) per month, effectively doubling the existing amounts and marking the first major fee revision since the pilot program allowing Vietnamese players
Read More
November 21, 2025
On November 17, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Interior introduced significant regulatory changes to make rooftop solar adoption easier and more cost-effective for property owners. Ministerial Regulation No. 72 B.E. 2568 (2025), issued under the Building Control Act B.E. 2522 (1979), was published in the Government Gazette on November 19, 2025, with immediate effect. Background Under the Building Control Act (BCA), any alteration made to a building requires either notification of the relevant authority or application for a building alteration permit—unless the alteration falls under a separate list of exceptions specified in the ministerial regulations issued under the BCA. In 2015, installation of solar rooftops on any residential building under 160 square meters was added to this list of exceptions, subject to inspection and notification requirements. The newly enacted regulation now eliminates many of these requirements and introduces a broader and more permissive framework to promote solar adoption nationwide. Key Changes Specifically, the regulation introduces three major changes: Expanded exemption from the definition of “building alteration”: The installation of solar panels on any building roof—regardless of the type of building or the total area of the installation—is no longer considered a building alteration under the BCA, provided that the total weight of the installation does not exceed 20 kg/m2. Removal of structural integrity certification requirement: The new regulation eliminates the obligation to obtain a structural stability certificate from a licensed civil engineer. Removal of notification requirement: Property owners or possessors are no longer required to notify the local authority before installation of a solar rooftop. Impact This significant streamlining of requirements for solar rooftop installation is expected to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy in the country, particularly for residential and commercial properties—similar to the way Thailand’s December 2024 removal of licensing requirements for factory solar rooftop installations encouraged such
Read More
November 19, 2025
Litigation has its place in resolving business disputes, but it is often time-consuming and costly. In Thailand, a straightforward civil case can take a year or more to reach judgment at first instance, and appeals can extend that timeline further. Court filing fees are tied to the value of the claim, typically amounting to around two percent for claims up to THB 50 million, before accounting for attorney fees, translation costs, expert work, and the internal time that management must devote to the case. Against this backdrop, Thai law provides an alternative pathway for parties to attempt resolution before filing suit, and Thai courts commonly encourage mediation as part of the dispute-resolution process. Specifically, prelitigation mediation is a court-supervised process designed to facilitate confidential settlement discussions at an early stage. Participation is voluntary and requires the consent of both parties. The process does not replace litigation but is available in parallel as an initial step for interested parties. If the parties reach an agreement, the settlement can be recorded as a consent judgment that is directly enforceable in Thailand. If no settlement is reached, the parties retain their full right to proceed with a court claim. Reasons to Consider Prelitigation Mediation Prelitigation mediation can offer several advantages. It may shorten timelines from months or years to just weeks, reduce legal costs, and keep discussions confidential. It also allows parties to pursue practical, business-driven solutions or tailored remedies that address their specific needs—outcomes that may not be available through traditional litigation. To facilitate this process, under Thailand’s Civil Procedure Code, parties may petition the court to initiate prelitigation mediation before filing a suit. If the opposing party agrees, the court appoints a mediator to work with the parties under established mediation rules. In such a scenario, there are no court
Read More