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

January 9, 2015

Enforcement of Loan Guarantees to Change under New Laws

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

New amendments to the Civil and Commercial Code will change the way loan guarantees are enforced in Thailand. Under the changes, which are due to take effect on February 11, guarantors will benefit from increased protection, as contracts imposing joint liability between a debtor and a guarantor will be void.

This change would, at first glance, appear to suggest that creditors will be forced to pursue debtors before pursuing guarantors. In reality, however, creditors will still have options to pursue guarantors before debtors under the new law.

Guarantees are contractual arrangements whereby a guarantor agrees to be responsible for another person’s performance.

For example, when a creditor provides a loan to a debtor and the debtor fails to repay the loan, the guarantor is required to pay the creditor. If the guarantor does not voluntarily perform, the creditor can enforce the guarantee. This normally requires filing a civil lawsuit.

Under the new amendments, when a debtor defaults, a creditor is required to notify the debtor’s guarantor within 60 days of the default.

If the creditor fails to give such notice, it cannot recover interest, costs, and expenses from the guarantor that were incurred after the 60 days. The present law, in comparison, does not contain any notice requirements.

Furthermore, under the new law, the creditor cannot demand the guarantor to immediately pay the debt until the notice reaches the guarantor. The present law allows creditors to immediately demand performance from the guarantor when the debtor defaults.

Another key change involves a guarantor’s liability for the debt. The new law states that contracts imposing joint liability between a debtor and guarantor will be void. The present law contains no such prohibition.

Under the present law, if a debtor defaults and the guarantor fails to voluntarily satisfy the debt, the creditor has the option to enforce the guarantee by filing a claim against the guarantor. Only the guarantor—and not the debtor—would be answerable for the debt. Such joint liability is especially useful when the debtor has no assets, which is often the reason why a guarantee arrangement is made in the first place.

Local lenders are not pleased with the changes to joint liability. Thai banking industry executives have expressed concern that a creditor would have to seek recovery from the debtor before it can enforce the guarantee. This would incur additional expenses and time to recover the debt, since two related lawsuits would be required where only one is necessary under the present law.

Despite these concerns, however, guarantors are not quite off the hook. Options still exist that allow creditors to directly enforce guarantees instead of first having to pursue debtors.

Guarantee arrangements generally involve two distinct contractual relationships. One relationship is between a creditor and debtor. The other is between a creditor and a guarantor. A court views each relationship as separate, even if all of the parties were signatories to the same contract.

Since the parties’ relationships are legally separate and distinct from each other, a creditor would still be able to pursue a claim exclusively against the guarantor without having to sue the debtor first. The new law’s prohibition on joint liability contract provisions does not prevent this.

Moreover, under Thai civil procedure laws, a court judgment is binding only on the parties in the case. Therefore, if a creditor sues a guarantor only, the guarantor cannot compel the creditor to enforce the debt against the debtor first.

If the guarantor wants the debtor to bear liability for the debt, the guarantor would have to ask the court to bring the debtor into the case as a co-defendant. The guarantor’s failure to do so would not affect the creditor’s right to enforce the guarantee.

A creditor may also consider suing both the guarantor and debtor simultaneously, as part of the same case. If the creditor obtains a judgment against both the guarantor and the debtor, the court would order the debtor to pay first if the guarantor can prove that the debtor has assets and enforcement is not difficult. Should the creditor fail to recover against the debtor’s asset, it can then seek to enforce the judgment against the guarantor.

A guarantor would be protected from paying a creditor first if the contract language in the applicable agreement states that the creditor must exhaust all remedies against the debtor before enforcing the guarantee. Any initial lawsuit against the guarantor would likely be unsuccessful if the parties’ contract is clear in this regard.

In sum, the new legal framework makes enforcement of guarantees more burdensome for creditors. However, guarantors would argue that the amendments provide greater fairness. In any case, creditors, debtors, and guarantors should all consider the legal and business issues raised by the new laws and act accordingly when setting up and enforcing guarantee arrangements.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
Read More
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
Read More
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