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​ 

August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
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
Read More