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

August 18, 2026

How Thailand’s Reduced Enforcement Fees Benefit Judgment Creditors, Debtors, and Investors

Subscribe to Updates

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.

Third, where assets are sold through bidding between the parties, the applicable fee has likewise been reduced from 2% to 1% of the highest bid.

Perhaps the most commercially significant aspect of the reform, however, is the elimination of certain execution officer fees where enforcement proceedings have commenced but no sale or disposition of assets ultimately takes place. Previously, execution officer fees could still be applied even if assets had been seized or attached but the parties subsequently reached a settlement or enforcement was otherwise discontinued before a sale occurred—increasing the overall cost of resolving a dispute and discouraging settlement once enforcement had already begun.

By removing these fees, the amendment reduced a practical cost barrier that previously existed once enforcement proceedings were underway. This change provides greater flexibility for creditors and debtors to negotiate commercially sensible resolutions after enforcement has commenced without incurring execution officer fees that would previously have arisen despite no sale of assets taking place.

Impact on Creditors

For judgment creditors, the reduction in execution officer fees improves the overall economics of enforcement. In many cases, enforcement costs directly affect the net amount ultimately recovered, particularly where the judgment debtor’s assets are insufficient to satisfy the judgment debt in full. Lower statutory fees mean that a greater portion of the enforcement proceeds may be available for distribution to the creditor.

The amendment also provides creditors with greater strategic flexibility during the enforcement process. Commencing enforcement proceedings is often an effective means of encouraging payment or bringing a debtor to the negotiating table. Under the previous fee structure, however, continuing with enforcement could result in additional costs even where the parties ultimately reached a settlement before any assets were sold. By reducing or eliminating these fees, the amendment has removed a practical disincentive to settlement after enforcement has commenced.

As a result, creditors may be more willing to initiate enforcement promptly to keep pressure on the debtor while remaining open to commercially sensible settlement discussions. Where a debtor later proposes repayment, restructuring, or the voluntary sale of assets before a public auction takes place, the revised fee structure may facilitate a more efficient and cost-effective resolution for both parties.

These changes are particularly relevant in commercial debt recovery, distressed asset situations, shareholder disputes, construction disputes, and the enforcement of arbitral awards and court judgments, where negotiated settlements frequently occur after enforcement proceedings have begun.

Impact on Debtors

The Civil Procedure Code amendment also benefits judgment debtors by reducing certain costs associated with the enforcement process. Lower execution officer fees may enable debtors to preserve more value in their assets and reduce the overall financial burden arising from enforcement. In practice, these statutory fees often form part of the overall cost of default and may ultimately be borne by the debtor.

The elimination of certain execution officer fees where enforcement concludes before assets are sold is especially significant. It removes a cost that could previously have arisen even where the parties successfully resolved a dispute after assets had been seized or attached but before a sale occurred.

This change may encourage debtors to engage with creditors at an earlier stage of the enforcement process. By negotiating promptly, arranging refinancing, redeeming seized assets, or agreeing to a repayment plan before assets are sold, debtors may be able to resolve disputes more efficiently while avoiding unnecessary enforcement costs.

Implications for Investors and Businesses

For investors and businesses operating in Thailand, the amended Civil Procedure Code reduces certain statutory costs associated with judgment enforcement, but it does not diminish the importance of careful enforcement planning or strategic decision-making.

Before entering into significant commercial transactions, businesses should continue to assess whether their counterparties have recoverable assets in Thailand, whether security should be obtained, and whether dispute resolution clauses are appropriate for the transaction. Obtaining a favorable judgment is only one step in the recovery process; effective enforcement planning should begin well before a dispute arises.

Once a judgment has been obtained, creditors should promptly consider asset searches, available seizure or attachment measures, the priority of competing claims, and the timing of enforcement. Although the Civil Procedure Code generally allows judgment creditors ten years to seek enforcement, delaying enforcement may significantly reduce the prospects of recovery if assets are transferred, encumbered, dissipated, or otherwise become unavailable.

Businesses should also bear in mind that execution officer fees represent only one component of the overall cost of enforcement. Depending on the nature of the assets and the enforcement measures pursued, additional costs may include legal fees, court expenses, publication costs, valuation fees, storage and transportation expenses, taxes, registration fees, and the internal management time required to oversee enforcement proceedings.

For foreign investors and cross-border businesses, the amendment also reflects Thailand’s continued efforts to improve the efficiency of its enforcement framework. Although the reduction in execution officer fees is a positive development, successful cross-border enforcement still requires careful preparation. Foreign parties should ensure that powers of attorney, corporate documents, translations, and any required notarization or legalization are prepared in advance, as delays in document preparation can affect the speed and efficiency of enforcement proceedings.

Outlook

By reducing execution officer fees and removing unnecessary costs where enforcement concludes before assets are sold, the Civil Procedure Code amendment improves the economics of recovery while encouraging commercially sensible settlements during the enforcement process.

From a broader commercial perspective, an effective and cost-efficient enforcement system is an important factor in promoting investor confidence and strengthening the business environment. The reduction in execution officer fees is a meaningful step in the right direction of this goal, while additional reforms—such as faster asset searches, more efficient auction procedures, and greater digital integration among government agencies—could enhance Thailand’s enforcement framework even further.

Businesses, lenders, investors, and other parties dealing with Thai counterparties should take the revised fee structure into account when assessing enforcement strategy, estimating recovery costs, and evaluating settlement opportunities. Although the amendment does not fundamentally alter the legal framework governing judgment enforcement, it may influence both the overall cost of recovery and the commercial considerations that shape negotiations after enforcement proceedings have commenced.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
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