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​ 

December 19, 2022
On November 22, 2022, the Thai cabinet approved in principle the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act (the “Bill”) proposed by the Office of the Consumer Protection Board. While Thailand’s Product Liability Act B.E. 2551 (2008) deals with liability to consumers arising from unsafe products, the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act aims to ensure that consumers are well protected from defects in appliances and vehicles that might not initially be easily visible or noticed. Key Definitions The Bill applies most notably to business operators and consumers. In the Bill, a “business operator” who may potentially be liable is: a manufacturer (or its hirer) of goods for sale; or a consignee or importer who brings goods into Thailand for sale; or a seller or a hire purchase provider who cannot identify the manufacturer (or its hirer) or the importer. As opposed to the Product Liability Act, which clearly provides that all business operators in the supply chain must be jointly liable, the Bill lacks such clear guidance. This could be interpreted as meaning that under the current Bill only the business operator at the top of the supply chain who is sued in the same case as other business operators is responsible. A “consumer” is defined as a purchaser or hirer of goods from a manufacturer, including an assignee or successor of the goods from the purchaser or hirer. Scope and Application The Bill is intended to govern purchase or hire-purchase contracts for: electric appliances; electronic devices; personal cars and motorcycles; other goods that may be set out in a future royal decree issued under the act. The Bill will not apply to any purchase or hire purchase of used products or as-is products when this is clearly stated by the seller or hire-purchase provider or the auctioneer in
Read More
November 24, 2022
On November 24, 2022, Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Marcin Czepelak and leaders of Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs chaired the opening ceremony of the PCA’s Representative Office in Hanoi. Beyond its headquarters in The Hague, the PCA has opened offices in other cities to make its services more accessible in different regions. The Hanoi office will be the PCA’s fourth office outside its headquarters. The PCA, established in 1899, is an intergovernmental organization which provides resolution services for disputes involving states, state entities, international organizations, as well as private entities. It provides and administers arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and fact-finding commissions of inquiry. The PCA’s services are primarily used in Europe and Asia. In cases administered in 2021, approximately 47% of the disputing parties were from the Western European and Others Group of the United Nations Regional Groups, and 40% from the Asia Pacific Group. The majority of disputes resolved by PCA are state-related disputes; however, the PCA’s scope of settlement is also extended to the private sector. The PCA’s Hanoi office is staffed to administer PCA hearings and meetings and will provide administrative services in support of parties and arbitrators conducting arbitral proceedings under the PCA’s auspices, serving as the official channel of communications and ensuring safe custody of documents. The PCA can also provide such services as financial administration, logistical and technical support for meetings and hearings, travel arrangements, and general secretarial and linguistic support. Currently, Vietnam has some active members of the PCA. The opening of the PCA representative office is a step toward realizing commitments between Vietnam and the PCA in their protocol signed in 2021, and serving the evolving dispute resolution needs of states and other entities in the coming years. With the new office in Hanoi, it is expected that
Read More
October 27, 2022
Under Thai bankruptcy law, a creditor can file a request for a debtor to be placed under an absolute receivership order and bankruptcy judgment. However, the debtor must be insolvent, and the debt owed to the creditor or creditors must be at least THB 1 million (for a debtor who is a natural person) or THB 2 million (for the debtor who is a juristic person). In order to know whether the latter requirement is met, the debt must be “determinable”—that is, known and monetarily quantifiable. More specifically, determinable debt is debt (up to the filing date) in an amount that can be calculated, whether the debt is payable immediately or in the future. The debt can be under a loan agreement or under a sale-and-purchase agreement. One question that sometimes comes up is whether damages arising out of termination of such an agreement are considered determinable debt. According to a number of Supreme Court precedents, if the debt (e.g., rent, fine or penalty) can be calculated as referred to in the agreement, the debt is determinable. Three of these cases are described below. Supreme Court Case No. 2653/2526 In this case, the defendant made a partial delivery of oil (i.e., not the amount fully expected) to the plaintiff, who claimed that the defendant owed them a fine of almost THB 14.9 million, calculated in accordance with the sale-and-purchase agreement for the oil. The defendant argued that the debt was not determinable because the plaintiff did not prove whether they suffered damage or not. The Supreme Court noted that the agreement for sale and purchase of oil stated clearly that if the defendant could not deliver oil to the plaintiff in full, the plaintiff had the right to terminate the agreement and fine the defendant 25 percent of the
Read More
October 19, 2022
The Factory Act B.E. 2535 (1992) is one of the most important laws regulating manufacturing businesses in Thailand. It applies to businesses either with machinery of 50 horsepower or more in total, or with a minimum of 50 workers in a facility that conducts “factory work” as defined under related ministerial regulations. The act was recently amended to extend the period of validity for factory licenses and to make other miscellaneous changes that facilitate business. However, the act’s criminal liabilities were left unchanged, and they remain a vital tool for the authorities to exert control over relevant standards and prosecute violations. Both fines and imprisonment are available as sanctions under the law. Examples of common violations of the Factory Act and their potential penalties include: Setting up and operating a factory without acquiring a license: up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to THB 200,000 (approx. USD 5,365), or both. Operating with noise level exceeding the standard set by the Ministry of Industry: a fine of up to THB 200,000. Not displaying a factory license in an open and easily visible location in the factory: a fine of up to THB 5,000 (approx. USD 134). Doing a test run of machinery prior to the start of the factory operations without notifying the authorities: a fine of up to THB 20,000. As factory activities are regulated in considerable detail, overlooking a minor change could potentially put the company at risk. The risk of violating the Factory Act increases when compliance is not a proactive policy—such as by instituting systems or safeguards to ensure adherence to the rules. Criminal Liability Violation of the Factory Act is especially a concern because criminal liability under the act is not limited to juristic persons (i.e., companies) but also applies to the director,
Read More