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

September 7, 2021

Condominium Disputes: Rights and Responsibilities of Joint Owners

“Condominium” combines the Latin roots com (“together”) and dominium (“right of ownership or property”) into a word that literally means “shared property.” This shared ownership of property—which in the condominium’s case has come to mean a large building of residential units—has been enormously popular in Bangkok and other Thai cities, and regardless of the economic situation in Thailand, condominiums continue to be attractive to Thai people and foreign investors due to their favorable locations, pleasant common spaces, access to convenient methods of transportation, and reasonable prices. The land available for “low-rise” buildings—such as detached houses, townhouses, twin houses, or commercial constructions—is expected to become progressively scarcer in urban areas, with condominiums or “high-rise” residences eventually becoming the residence of choice.

Despite its advantages, living in condominiums involves the coming together of the people owning or leasing the units, so various conflicts among the owners or with the condominium juristic person are bound to arise from time to time. As a continuation of a similar discussion of condominiums that we wrote a few years ago, this article aims to provide some clarity to these issues by identifying some key elements of the legal framework governing condominiums, considering some of the more common disputes that arise, and suggesting legally sound resolutions to those disputes.

Legal basics

The main law governing condominiums in Thailand is the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979), which establishes the following key definitions:

  • Condominium. A building in which the ownership is divided into multiple parts consisting of individual personal properties and jointly owned common property.
  • Personal property. A condominium unit, including constructions and land provided to each unit owner. Personal property can be divided into two main types: a “unit,” which refers to the parts of the condominium that are divided to be owned by different persons; and a developed or undeveloped piece of land provided for each condominium owner, such as a space in the parking lot or a small plot of land for gardening.
  • Common property. Land on which the condominium is situated and other land and property provided for use or common interest of the joint owners. Examples of common property in the Condominium Act include land, constructions, tools, and supplies for common use or common interest, and in practice these often include walkways and stairwells, grounds and gardens, amenities such as pools and fitness facilities, and other common areas of the property. In short, the parts of the condominium that are not units or personal property provided with units. The joint owners thus share ownership over these things as well.

Common disputes

Air-conditioner noise

A noisy air-conditioner from a neighboring residence can be a serious issue as it can disturb the peace, quiet, and quality of life that condominium residents expect. If a condominium resident finds that the noise from a neighboring air-conditioning unit is severely intrusive, the first step is to notify the manager of the condominium juristic person so that the manager can inform the neighbor and request that they fix the problem. This is because one of the manager’s duties under section 36 of the Condominium Act is to keep order in the condominium. Attempting to fix the problem on one’s own, on the other hand, is not recommended because it may exacerbate the conflict.

If the neighbor ignores the problem after having been notified, a second step may come into play. In this case, the affected resident has the legal right to file a civil lawsuit against the neighbor, on the grounds that neighbor committed a wrongful act, and requesting a court order requiring the neighbor to stop the noise or fix the air-conditioner.

The affected resident may also claim damages if they have suffered monetary damage from the problem caused by the neighbor’s intentional act or negligence. In such a case, the claimed damages would have to be substantiated by evidence such as records of the disturbing noise, proof of medical treatment costs (if the affected resident suffers insomnia from the noisy air-conditioner, for example), or other documentation.

Broken pipes

Who should be liable when a pipe in the common area (common property) that runs through a unit (personal property) breaks because the plumbing is outdated?

As described above, common property refers to land, constructions, tools, and supplies for common use or common interest—including systems for fire protection, lighting, ventilation, air conditioning, drainage, and wastewater treatment. The condominium juristic person is established to take care of, administer, and maintain this common property.

When a pipe that runs through a unit leaks or breaks because of its old condition (where no one is at fault), to determine who should be responsible we must first determine whether the broken conduit is a central pipe (i.e., a pipe that enters the unit directly from the common property, or via other units). If it is, then the condominium juristic person would be liable. If it is not a central or major pipe that runs through multiple units, but is instead inside of only a single unit, the unit owner would be responsible.

Parking lot issue

Another problem that condominium residents often experience relates to parking lots, which are part of the common property. If a condominium does not have enough parking spaces in its parking lot for all residents, the “first come, first serve” principle would normally apply, which can lead to disputes if the number of parking spaces is low compared to the number of residents’ vehicles.

Whether a buyer has his or her own parking space depends on whether the condominium developer or seller offered this when selling the condominium unit. If the condominium sale and purchase agreement states that the unit is being sold together with a fixed parking space, the parking space would become the owner’s personal property, and the owner then has the right to park there and prevent anyone else from doing so. This has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, and the condominium juristic person may not do anything to interfere with the buyer’s use of a parking space which is part of the owner’s personal property.

On the other hand, if there is no such agreement between the seller and the buyer, the parking lot would be considered common property under the Condominium Act. While a unit owner would have the right to use the parking lot in that circumstance, they would not have ownership over any particular spaces in it.

Settling disputes

Many of the disputes among condominium joint owners or residents, such as the scenarios described above, can seem mundane and can start from minor issues. However, in the context of condominium ownership, it is not unusual for these minor issues to become more serious if the parties cannot find a mutual solution to their dispute. The best way to resolve the dispute is for the parties to discuss and agree on a fair solution, which is most likely to be achieved if it is based on a clear understanding the rights and legal principles of condominium ownership in Thailand. Finally, if a mutual agreement proves unattainable, the legal framework for condominium ownership in Thailand clearly delineates which rights belong to owners, residents, and juristic persons in each situation.

 

This article was prepared with the assistance of intern Chareef Wattana.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
August 27, 2026
On August 25, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Interior issued an urgent circular letter (No. MorTor 0515.2/Wor 19097) to all provincial governors, introducing enhanced enforcement guidelines for the investigation and prosecution of suspected nominee landownership by foreign nationals. The circular letter builds upon a prior circular letter issued on April 19, 2023 (No. MorTor 0515.2/Wor 7665), which first established the framework for provincial-level investigation committees and interagency cooperation on this issue. Under Thailand’s Land Code, foreign nationals are generally prohibited from owning land. To circumvent this restriction, some foreign nationals have historically used Thai nominees, whether individuals or Thai-registered juristic persons, to hold land on their behalf. Various government enforcement measures have been progressively strengthened in recent years. The new circular letter introduces three key measures: Expanded investigation committees. Provincial authorities must add representatives from specialized investigative agencies (such as local police superintendents) to the existing Fact-Finding and Investigation Committees, giving them broader access to shareholding data, tax records, immigration information, financial records, and evidentiary materials. Proactive screening of juristic persons. Provincial Land Offices are now required to actively screen and flag juristic persons (companies, partnerships, etc.) that show risk indicators of acting as nominees for foreign land ownership. The screening results must be referred to the investigation committees, which will determine whether the entity qualifies as a “foreign national” under the Land Code or was set up to circumvent the law. Two-track enforcement actions. Based on the committee’s findings, enforcement may consist of one or both of the following: Land disposal: If a juristic person is classified as a foreign national under the law, the provincial governor sets a deadline for the entity to dispose of the land under the Land Code. Criminal prosecution: If the entity was established specifically to hold land on behalf of a foreign national in circumvention
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable