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​ 

September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More