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

February 26, 2025

Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under Thailand’s Arbitration Act: Legal Procedures, Challenges, and Strategic Considerations

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards on December 21, 1959, with the Convention coming into force on March 20, 1960. This ratification was a significant step in aligning Thailand’s arbitration framework with international standards, facilitating the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the country. In Thailand, the enforcement of both domestic and international arbitral awards is governed by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), which is based on the first version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 (as opposed to the latest version from 2006).

However, unlike Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore, Thailand is not an UNCITRAL Model Law country. While Thailand’s Arbitration Act is influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law, it incorporates certain local contexts that require interpretation alongside Thai court rulings. The Arbitration Act also confirms the authority of arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures, reinforcing tribunals’ power in managing disputes effectively. Additionally, the act incorporates principles from the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958).

This article explores the key procedural steps, timeframes, and practical challenges associated with the enforcement of arbitral awards under Thailand’s legal framework.

Procedures for Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Thailand

The enforcement of arbitral awards in Thailand follows the procedures outlined in the Arbitration Act:

  • Application to the competent court: Under the Arbitration Act, parties seeking enforcement must submit a petition to the Thai courts within three years of the award having become enforceable. The application must include the original or certified copies of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement, along with translations if necessary. In Thailand, the choice of court for filing the arbitral award depends on the nature of the disputed contract. If the contract concerns public services, concessions, or agreements between the state and private parties, the award will likely be filed with the Administrative Court. However, for commercial contracts between private parties, the award will be filed with the Court of Justice, which consists of both general and specialized courts. Additionally, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Central Court (IP&IT Court) has jurisdiction over the enforcement of arbitral awards related to intellectual property and international trade disputes.
  • Judicial review of the award: The court will review the application to ensure compliance with section 43 of the Arbitration Act. Thai courts generally uphold a pro-enforcement approach but may refuse enforcement on limited grounds, such as procedural irregularities, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of Thailand’s public policy.
  • Recognition and enforcement order: If no valid grounds for refusal are found, the court will issue an enforcement order, allowing the successful party to take further steps such as seizing assets or compelling compliance.
  • Execution of the award: Once recognized, the arbitral award is enforced similarly to a domestic court judgment, following Thai execution procedures under the Civil Procedure Code.

Timeframes for Enforcement

Thailand provides a structured and efficient framework for enforcing arbitral awards under the Arbitration Act. The enforcement timeline depends on court procedures and any challenges that may be raised by the losing party. However, with clear legal provisions and the judiciary’s commitment to upholding arbitration, parties can navigate the enforcement process effectively within the following general timeframes:

  • Application filing: The petition for enforcement must be filed within three years of the award becoming enforceable, as stipulated in section 41 of the Arbitration Act.
  • Court proceedings: Judicial review of an enforcement application typically takes six months to one year in the court of first instance, depending on whether the losing party contests enforcement.
  • Appeals and challenges: If enforcement is challenged, appeals can extend the process for another one or two years in the Supreme Court. The losing party may seek annulment of the award under section 40 of the act, which could further delay enforcement. The Arbitration Act provides a fast-track appeal process, allowing the recognition and challenges of an arbitral award to be directly appealed from the first-instance court to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeal.
  • Execution of the award: After recognition, the actual execution—such as asset seizure or garnishment—can take additional months or years if the respondent resists compliance. The time limit for executing an award judgment is 10 years from the date of the court’s final order recognizing and enforcing the arbitral award.

Practical Challenges in Enforcement

Despite Thailand’s adherence to the New York Convention, several practical problems might arise when enforcing arbitral awards:

1. Resistance from the Award Debtor

Many award debtors attempt to delay enforcement through procedural objections or seeking annulment under section 40 of the Arbitration Act.

Additionally, enforcement of foreign-language arbitral awards requires a full Thai translation before submission of the enforcement application. This requirement can create further procedural hurdles and delays, as ensuring the accuracy and official certification of the translation is critical to the enforcement process.

Another common issue is ensuring that the opposing debtor has received the arbitral award. It is often necessary for local counsel to issue a formal demand notice and resend a copy of the arbitral award to confirm its delivery and receipt by the opposing debtor. This additional procedural step, while necessary to establish proper notification, can further delay the enforcement process.

2. Public Policy Objections

Courts in Thailand support arbitration and enforce arbitral awards in accordance with the Arbitration Act. Under section 44, enforcement may be denied if an award is found to be contrary to Thailand’s public policy or good morals. This provision serves to maintain legal integrity while allowing courts to balance enforcement with fundamental legal principles. By ensuring that awards comply with national legal standards, Thai courts reinforce Thailand’s position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction while safeguarding the fairness and legitimacy of the arbitration process.

One example is a case in which the claim was time-barred due to the expiration of a 10-year prescription period under Thai law. The Supreme Court (Judgment No. 3872-3873/2566) held that claims arising from a breach of an engineering consultancy contract, which is classified as a contract for work, are subject to a 10-year prescription period under section 193/30 of the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC). The period begins when the consultant’s duty to provide advice ends, as stipulated in section 193/12 of the CCC. A contractual requirement to notify disputes in writing before arbitration does not affect the commencement of the prescription period, as it contradicts legal principles. Although the initial submission of the dispute to arbitration could have interrupted the prescription period under section 193/14 (4) of the CCC, the tribunal dismissed the claim due to the claimant’s lack of authority to submit the dispute. Consequently, under Sections 193/17 and 193/18 CCC, the interruption did not take effect, and the subsequent filing of the dispute after the 10-year period rendered the claim time-barred.

In another example, an arbitral award was annulled for exceeding jurisdiction and violating public policy by imposing obligations on a nonparty. The Supreme Court (Judgment No. 2050/2566) ruled that an arbitral award cannot impose obligations on third parties who were not involved in the arbitration proceedings. The award, which required the annulment of a property transfer and the subsequent retransfer of ownership, was deemed unenforceable against a nonparty to the case, as enforcing such an order would violate public policy and good morals. Additionally, the tribunal exceeded its authority by issuing an award beyond the scope of the claimant’s request, contrary to section 37, paragraph 2 of the Arbitration Act. Since this issue concerns public order, the Supreme Court exercised its authority under the Civil Procedure Code to review the matter sua sponte, affirming the principle that arbitral awards must remain within the jurisdictional limits set by law.

3. Enforcement Against State-Owned Entities

Thailand’s legal system operates with parallel courts, comprising the judicial courts, which handle general commercial and criminal cases, and specialized courts, such as the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, the Central Tax Court, and the Labour Court. Additionally, the Administrative Court has jurisdiction over disputes involving government contracts, state-private agreements, concession contracts, and matters related to public interest. Therefore, when seeking enforcement of an arbitral award, it is crucial to assess the nature of the disputed agreement. If the dispute involves a concession contract or a contract related to public interest, jurisdiction falls under the Central Administrative Court, which has only one other level of adjudication—the Supreme Administrative Court.

When enforcement is sought against state-owned enterprises, sovereign immunity defenses can arise. The Thai government has specific regulations on enforcement against public entities, making recovery more complex. The Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996) covers the enforcement of arbitral awards recognized and enforced by the Administrative Court. If the court determines that the administrative order requiring payment is final, the court will issue a writ of execution, appoint an enforcement officer, and notify the enforcement officer to proceed accordingly. The state agency that issued the payment order will be deemed the judgment creditor, while the person subject to the administrative enforcement measure shall be deemed the judgment debtor.

Once the court has issued the writ of execution, the state agency will contact the Legal Execution Department and issue a formal notice to the person subject to the administrative enforcement measure, informing them that the court has appointed an enforcement officer to proceed with the execution.

For the purpose of execution, the provincial court, the Civil Court, the South Bangkok Civil Court, the Thonburi Civil Court, or any other civil court in Bangkok, as applicable, may have jurisdiction to adjudicate or issue any orders related to the execution of the case. The competent court will be determined based on the domicile of the person subject to the administrative enforcement measure or the location of the property subject to administrative enforcement.

Thailand has been a respondent in two landmark investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases: Walter Bau v. Thailand, brought under the Thailand-Germany BIT, and Kingsgate v. Thailand, initiated under the Thailand-Australia FTA. These ISDS cases have increased pressure on the Thai government and state enterprises, highlighting the challenges associated with investment treaty obligations and international arbitration.

4. Asset Tracing and Recovery

Even when an award is recognized, locating and seizing assets in Thailand can be challenging, especially if the debtor has structured their assets to evade enforcement.

One of the primary hurdles in asset recovery is the lack of a robust prejudgment asset freezing mechanism, making it difficult to prevent the dissipation of assets before a court ruling. Additionally, Thai courts impose strict proof requirements, demanding clear and convincing evidence of ownership, fraudulent intent, or improper asset transfers. The corporate veil doctrine also poses a challenge, as courts are generally reluctant to pierce the corporate structure, limiting creditors’ ability to hold parent companies or affiliated entities liable. Furthermore, Thailand does not recognize foreign court judgments, requiring claimants to initiate fresh proceedings in Thai courts, which can be both time-consuming and costly.

In addition, Thailand’s strict banking secrecy laws restrict access to financial records without a court order or regulatory intervention, complicating the process of tracing assets. The use of nominee directors and corporate structures further obscures beneficial ownership, making it difficult to identify the true owners of concealed assets. Foreign creditors also face regulatory hurdles, as Thailand imposes restrictions on foreign participation in legal proceedings related to asset recovery.

Recovering assets from insolvent debtors also presents challenges, as Thailand’s insolvency laws can be slow and cumbersome, particularly for foreign creditors. Secured creditors generally receive priority in bankruptcy proceedings, making it difficult for unsecured creditors to recover anything significant. Complex bankruptcy litigation further adds to the time and cost of asset recovery.

The arbitral award was annulled because the tribunal’s failure to suspend proceedings violated the Bankruptcy Act and public policy.

The Supreme Court (Judgment No. 3114/2566) has held that once a petition for business rehabilitation is filed and accepted by the Central Bankruptcy Court, it affects civil proceedings against the debtor. Under the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483, civil lawsuits concerning the debtor’s assets or disputes that may result in the debtor’s liability or damages cannot be initiated or referred to arbitration if the debt arose before the court approved the rehabilitation plan. Ongoing cases must be suspended unless the court orders otherwise. In this case, since the Central Bankruptcy Court accepted the rehabilitation petition and did not issue an exception, the arbitral tribunal was required to suspend proceedings. The tribunal’s failure to do so violated the Bankruptcy Act, a matter of public policy, warranting the annulment of the arbitral award.

Conclusion

Thailand’s legal framework provides a structured and predictable process for enforcing arbitral awards. The Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 outlines clear procedural steps and legal timeframes that, when properly navigated, enhance the enforceability of awards. By understanding jurisdictional considerations and proactively addressing potential challenges, award creditors can strengthen their enforcement strategies and maximize recovery. With Thailand’s continued commitment to arbitration-friendly policies, the country remains a reliable jurisdiction for resolving commercial disputes efficiently and effectively.

 

A shortened version of this article first appeared in the February 2025 issue of The Legal Industry Reviews: Thailand.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More
April 29, 2026
Is arbitration only as good as the arbitrator? Undoubtedly. Choosing an arbitrator is therefore one of the most pivotal decisions a party makes in the arbitration proceedings. In practice in Vietnam, many arbitration proceedings have been significantly prolonged because of multiple unsuccessful appointments arising from conflicts of interest, challenges by the opposing party, or subsequent unavailability. In other cases, additional expenses were incurred where appointed arbitrators were located far from the hearing venue or were unfamiliar with the arbitration language or applicable law. To preempt these issues and secure a more efficient and cost-effective appointment, this article proposes a practical, step-by-step approach to arbitrator selection. Step 1: Know Your Own Case At the outset, it is essential to develop a clear understanding of the dispute by addressing the following key considerations: Nature of the dispute: From which sector does it arise (e.g., construction, international trade, investment, banking and finance, technology, intellectual property)? Value and complexity: Is the dispute high or low in value? Does it involve multiple parties, multiple legal systems, or foreign elements? Is its crux related to multiple legal matters? Existing arbitration agreement: Does the agreement specify the seat, language, and governing law? If not, what would be appropriate considering the parties’ conduct and the applicable arbitration rules? Having clear answers to these questions in mind will help identify, from the outset, the core criteria for selecting an appropriate arbitrator. Step 2: Form Your Candidate Pool Based on the understanding developed in Step 1, a candidate pool should be formed through a structured and careful process: Researching Arbitrator Profiles At the initial stage, comprehensive research should be conducted via reliable sources to ensure both accuracy and diversity of candidates. Official sources, such as lists of arbitrators published by arbitral institutions, most notably the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre
Read More