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​ 

July 3, 2026
Thailand will keep its reduced government fees for property sale and mortgage registration in place for another year. Two Ministry of Interior notifications, issued following a cabinet resolution on June 30, 2026, and published in the Government Gazette on July 1, 2026, extend the previously reduced fee levels through June 30, 2027. The reduced registration fees apply to the sale and mortgage of the same property types covered in prior versions of the scheme: detached houses, semidetached houses, row houses, commercial buildings, land transferred together with such buildings, and condominium units. To be eligible for the reduced fees, the purchase price, the officially assessed value, and the mortgage amount must each not exceed THB 7 million, and the buyer must be a Thai individual. The reduced registration fees for eligible sales and mortgages are calculated as follows: Sale: 0.01% of the official assessed value (reduced from standard rate of 2%) Mortgage: 0.01% of the mortgage amount (reduced from standard rate of 1%) The reduced mortgage registration fee applies only if the mortgage is registered at the same time as the sale of the property.
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple