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

July 5, 2024

Global Freezing Order Guide – Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Eversheds Sutherland

In this chapter from Eversheds Sutherland’s Global Freezing Order Guide, attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins provide answers to common questions regarding civil freezing orders and their particulars in Thailand.

1. Are freezing orders (or their equivalent referred to below) available in civil legal proceedings in this jurisdiction and what is their effect?

Yes. The effect of a freezing order is that the respondent is prohibited from transferring or disposing of the assets referred to in the freezing order until a specified time (for example, a further hearing, a judgment or payment) or a further order of the Court. The property subject to a freezing order may include the property in dispute or the respondent’s property, including money or property owed to the respondent by a third party. Thai law is silent on the issue of whether a freezing order issued by a Thai Court could potentially apply to assets located outside of Thailand. In light of this, in practice, a Thai Court is unlikely to include assets located outside of Thailand in a freezing order. It is possible that a Thai Court could order a respondent over whom it has jurisdiction not to transfer any property or other assets located abroad, however, enforceability may be difficult, with limited consequences where the respondent refused to comply with such an order.

2. Are other interim orders commonly made in conjunction with a freezing (or equivalent) order?

No. The Court does not typically place obligations on the respondent to provide disclosure of the nature, value and location of his, her or its assets, with the onus being on the applicant to provide the Court with the information available.

3. Briefly what is the relevant legal test?

The applicant has to prove that there is good cause for the complaint. The applicant must also prove that the respondent is going to willfully remove the property in dispute or all or part of their property from the Court’s jurisdiction, or is going to sell or dispose of such property for the purpose of impeding or obstructing the enforcement of any execution order which may be issued against the respondent, or for the purpose of putting the applicant at a disadvantage.

4. Briefly what is the process for obtaining a freezing (or equivalent) order?

The applicant must submit a petition to request a freezing order. The petition must include an explanation of the facts sufficient to satisfy the relevant legal test. Such a petition must be made without notice to the respondent. There will then be an ex parte witness hearing for the Court to determine whether to issue the freezing order.

5. Does the applicant have to provide any form of security or commit to compensation if its claim is ultimately unsuccessful and any freezing (or equivalent) order granted causes loss and damage to the respondent?

Yes. The Court may order the applicant to place a security deposit with the Court as a condition of granting the freezing order.

6. Can it be sought against third parties?

Yes, if the respondent’s property has been transferred to a third party or if the property is owed to the respondent by a third party. In such cases, the freezing order will be binding on the third party as soon as they have been served with it. However, the freezing order shall not be enforced against a third party who can prove that the property that is subject to the freezing order has been transferred to them in good faith, and for consideration, prior to the notification of such order to the respondent.

7. What assets are covered by a freezing (or equivalent) order?

It can be any form of assets (i.e. movable or immovable property located within the jurisdiction).

8. Can a freezing (or equivalent) order be made in support of substantive proceedings abroad?

No.

9. Can a freezing (or equivalent) order be made in support of arbitration proceedings or awards?

Yes. The applicant may file a petition requesting the competent Court to issue an order imposing provisional measures for the protection of their interests before or during the arbitration proceedings. If the Court is of the opinion that, had such proceedings been conducted in Court, the Court would have been able to issue such order, the Court may proceed as requested. In this case, the provisions regarding provisional measures under the Thai Civil Procedure Code (i.e. the provisions regarding freezing orders discussed elsewhere in these responses) shall also apply to a freezing order made in support of arbitration proceedings or awards.

However, where the Court issues an order allowing the applicant’s petition, if the applicant fails to pursue arbitration proceedings within 30 days from the date of the Court’s order or within any other time period as determined by the Court, the order shall be deemed to have lapsed at the expiration of such time limit.

10. At what stage of proceedings can a freezing (or equivalent) order be sought?

The applicant can submit a petition to request a freezing order at any stage of proceedings, prior to the issuance of the judgment of the Court.

11. Are there typically any exceptions to the general prohibition on the respondent’s use of assets subject to a freezing (or equivalent) order?

As noted above, a freezing order will prohibit the respondent from transferring or disposing of the asset(s) referred to in the order. The relevant laws and regulations do not provide any specific exceptions to this general prohibition. For certain non-liquid assets, however, a freezing order applies only to the transfer of the asset; it will not prohibit the respondent from the reasonable or ordinary use of the asset, so long as that use does not damage or otherwise impair the value of the asset. For bank accounts or other liquid assets subject to a freezing order, it will be up to the discretion of the Court whether to allow the respondent to use or access those assets for living or other expenses.

12.What happens after a freezing (or equivalent) order is granted?

Once a freezing order has been granted, it can be immediately enforced against the respondent. The respondent shall be informed of such order without delay. As noted above, however, there is an exception for enforcement against a third party who can prove that the property that is subject to the freezing order has been transferred to them in good faith, and for consideration, prior to the notification of such order to the respondent.

13. Who pays the costs of the application for a freezing (or equivalent) order?

The applicant will be responsible for all of the costs for the petition for a freezing order.

14. What protections are there typically in a freezing (or equivalent) order for third parties to such orders?

(i) A third party is not prevented from exercising any rights of set-off arising prior to its notification of the freezing order.

(ii) A third party does not need to enquire as to the application of any money withdrawn by the respondent if the withdrawal appears to be permitted by the freezing order.

(iii) As regards assets outside of the jurisdiction, a freezing order does not prevent a third party from complying with (a) what it reasonably believes to be its obligations under the law of the country where the assets are located or the law of any contract between itself and the respondent or (b) any orders of the Courts of the country where the assets are located.

There is no provision in Thai law that requires applicants undertake to pay the reasonable costs of any third party which have been incurred as a result of a freezing order, or to compensate them for any loss caused by it. In this instance the aggrieved third party would have to file a separate civil claim to attempt to recover any losses.

A third party whose property is subject to a freezing order or who is likely to be adversely affected by the freezing order may file a petition to the Court requesting that the Court withdraw, revoke, or amend the order. As noted above, this petition could be based on the third party’s good-faith possession of the property. Similarly, it could also be based on the applicant’s misunderstanding or mistake regarding the ownership of the property (i.e. that the respondent is not the true owner of the property or that the third party is a proper co-owner of the property).

15. What are the consequences of breach of a freezing (or equivalent) order?

A respondent or a third party who knowingly breaches the terms of a freezing order may be imprisoned, fined, or have their assets seized.

16. Does a third party notified of (but not a party to) a freezing (or equivalent) order owe a duty of care to the applicant (meaning it can be liable to the applicant for non-compliance)?

Yes. A third party who breaches a freezing order may be imprisoned, fined, or have their assets seized.

17. Can a freezing (or equivalent) order be enforced abroad?

As noted in the response to question 1, a Thai Court is unlikely to include assets located outside of Thailand in a freezing order. The enforceability of a Thai freezing order abroad would depend on the laws in the jurisdiction in which the freezing order is to be enforced. There is, however, nothing under Thai law preventing someone from attempting to enforce a freezing order abroad.

18. Can freezing (or equivalent) orders from overseas jurisdictions be enforced in this jurisdiction?

No. A Thai Court will not recognize a freezing order issued by a foreign jurisdiction.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
Read More
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