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

December 12, 2025

Foreign Court Judgments vs. Foreign Arbitration Awards in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
 

Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act.

Thailand’s Overall Approach

Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law.

Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds.

Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding

Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion.

In practical terms, winning abroad does not eliminate the need for Thai litigation. Parties seeking to enforce a foreign judgment will need to prepare for a full Thai trial, including translation of key documents, witness preparation, compliance with Thai evidentiary rules, and advanced planning for execution against Thai assets.

Foreign Arbitration Awards: A Direct and Structured Enforcement Path

Foreign arbitral awards benefit from a clear statutory framework under the Arbitration Act. A party may petition the appropriate Thai court for recognition and enforcement, avoiding a retrial on the merits. The petition must be filed within three years from the date the award becomes enforceable and must include originals or certified copies of the award and arbitration agreement, along with certified Thai translations. Which court should be petitioned depends on the nature of the dispute—for example, the general civil courts for most commercial matters, the Central IP & IT Court for IP or international trade issues, and the Administrative Court for certain state-related contracts.

Thai courts may refuse enforcement only on the narrow grounds set out in the relevant sections of the Arbitration Act and Article V of the New York Convention. These include invalid arbitration agreements, lack of due process, decisions beyond the scope of the arbitration clause, improper tribunal composition or procedure, non-arbitrability, and violations of Thai public order or good morals. Thai courts take public policy and due process concerns seriously. Awards have been refused or set aside when they attempted to bind nonparties, conflicted with bankruptcy stays, or exceeded the tribunal’s authority. As a general matter, courts typically focus on procedural fairness rather than substantive review, reflecting Thailand’s pro-enforcement approach while maintaining essential safeguards.

Appeals in enforcement proceedings are limited. A first-instance order is generally final, with only narrow rights to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Once enforcement is granted, execution proceeds in the same manner as a Thai judgment: through seizure, auction, and garnishment under the Civil Procedure Code.

Strategic Considerations for Cross-Border Disputes

When enforcement in Thailand is a foreseeable issue, arbitration generally offers greater predictability because qualifying foreign awards can be enforced directly. To enhance enforceability, parties should ensure a clear, valid arbitration agreement, choose a reputable arbitral institution and a New York Convention seat, and adopt procedural rules that support fair notice and efficient case management.

Foreign court litigation may still be useful in some situations, but if Thai enforcement will matter, parties should plan for a full re-litigation, which can be slower and more expensive. Parties can manage this risk by obtaining security outside Thailand, structuring collateral arrangements, or planning for Thai proceedings from the outset.

In consumer contracts, businesses should note that Thai courts apply heightened scrutiny. The Unfair Contract Terms Act and the Consumer Case Procedure Act allow courts to strike down terms deemed unfair, and recent decisions have invalidated certain consumer arbitration clauses that imposed undue burdens or limited statutory protections. Consumer arbitration clauses should therefore be drafted carefully.

Practical Tips for Parties

Parties considering enforcement options in Thailand should keep the following in mind:

  • Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly but may support a new lawsuit as persuasive evidence. Prepare for a full Thai proceeding, including document translation, presenting evidence, and eventual execution procedures.
  • Foreign arbitral awards can be recognized and enforced directly if the procedural requirements of the Arbitration Act are met. File the petition within three years and include certified copies and translations. Expect a focused hearing on procedural fairness, not substance. Once recognized, the award will be enforced as a Thai judgment.
  • Public policy and due process remain important. Awards that affect nonparties, conflict with bankruptcy stays, or grant relief inconsistent with Thai public order may face resistance.
  • Appeals are streamlined, with most enforcement decisions going directly to the Supreme Court on narrow grounds.
  • Drafting matters. If Thai enforcement is important, arbitration is usually the safer choice. Draft clear arbitration clauses, consider procedural and cost provisions, and account for consumer-protection rules where relevant.

Conclusion

Thailand’s approach is clear: foreign court judgments must be re-litigated in a Thai court, while foreign arbitral awards benefit from a direct and predictable enforcement regime under the New York Convention. Businesses operating across borders should consider these distinctions in contract drafting and dispute resolution planning to reduce enforcement risk and avoid surprises when disputes arise.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​

September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
Read More
June 25, 2025
In Thailand, in-court business rehabilitation is a legal proceeding that enhances a debtor’s chance to restructure business operations for corporate debtors who are unable to repay their debts. The purpose of this proceeding is to allow the debtor to continue operating the business and generate income to repay creditors. The amounts that creditors receive in the rehabilitation proceeding are greater than the amounts creditors would receive if the debtor went bankrupt. The law is not designed to allow debtors or creditors to use the business rehabilitation process in bad faith for their benefit or to defraud another party. Accordingly, the Business Rehabilitation Law, which is included in the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), provides criminal liability for actions taken before or during the process. This article addresses the key points regarding criminal liability for safeguarding debtors and creditors in business rehabilitation proceedings from any parties who act in bad faith. Criminal Liability in Business Rehabilitation The following provisions establish the framework for criminal liability in business rehabilitation cases, ensuring that all parties act with integrity throughout the process. The Bankruptcy Act of Thailand B.E. 2483 (1940) provides the relevant provisions regarding the business rehabilitation process. Additionally, if a company debtor or its authorized directors are found to have committed fraud or malfeasance under the Bankruptcy Act, they can also be held criminally liable under the Penal Code or related criminal statutes. The rehabilitation process aims to help a business recover financially under the supervision of the court. When the court approves the rehabilitation plan, the court appoints a business rehabilitation plan administrator to manage and implement the process. However, if it is discovered that the debtor, its executives, or even the plan administrator engaged in illegal activities prior to or during the rehabilitation process—such as tax evasion, embezzlement,
Read More
June 13, 2025
In today’s digital age, cyberattacks have become a real threat to organizations worldwide. These attacks can range from phishing and malware to ransomware and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. As the frequency and sophistication of these attacks increase, so does the importance of cybersecurity compliance. In the corporate world, compliance refers to the process of ensuring that a company and its employees adhere to all relevant laws, regulations, standards, and ethical practices—but it should not stop there. Compliance should also encompass asset recovery and disciplinary measures, which can both help organizations address incidents effectively and promote good governance. Cyberattacks are malicious attempts to access or damage a computer system or network, often carried out for financial gain, for political activism, or simply to cause disruption. For instance, a successful attack might involve an attacker creating an email address that closely resembles a legitimate one, perhaps by changing only one or two characters. That email address is then inserted into an existing conversation thread, making it appear as if the user with this email address was already part of the discussion. This tactic can easily deceive a recipient into believing the email was sent from a trusted source, thereby leading them to click on malicious links, provide sensitive information, or even make payments in accordance with the attacker’s request or instructions. Phishing attacks like these are particularly dangerous and can have a serious impact on the ongoing business of a corporation because they exploit the trust and familiarity established in the original email chain. Effective Mitigation Approaches Mechanisms for addressing the aftermath of a crisis provide important recourse to affected organizations, but effective compliance mechanisms can minimize the risk of such crises ever occurring. Companies should therefore prioritize preventative measures and implementation of effective crisis management schemes. Various legal
Read More