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

Subscribe to Updates

“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 Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Real Estate

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More