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 15, 2011

The Importance of Drawing Up Your Will

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

When Khun Nong’s father passed away from a heart attack, it was a very emotional time. After several days of funeral rites, family members returned to their homes abroad, and Khun Nong was on her own and emotionally exhausted. Nevertheless, it was time to start settling the estate.

Khun Nong’s father had always promised her she would one day inherit his business and all that he owned. Unfortunately, she soon learned her father had not made a will. This resulted in an outcome she was not expecting—one far different from what her father wanted for her. Ultimately, a sizeable portion of the inheritance went to others.

Khun Nong’s story illustrates an issue we encounter frequently. We are often asked by clients—Thai and non-Thai alike—whether it is really necessary to make a will. While no one likes to think about death, most people do want a say in how their estate is managed after they pass away.

When a person dies, his or her estate is handed down to the heirs. They are either legatees (people to whom you make gifts in your will) or statutory heirs (people who receive your estate in accordance with the law if you die without a will).

For example, if you are survived by your descendants, spouse and parents, and you did not have a will, your estate will be divided equally among each of your descendants (per stirpes), your spouse and each of your parents. (The spouse’s interest in the community property is a separate issue.) If you are not survived by any of the above, the law provides a list of other heirs, in rank order, who will inherit proportionately. Statutory inheritance can be very complicated.

Rather than relying on statutory inheritance, we have found clients prefer to make a specific plan for their assets. They may be motivated by a desire to make certain gifts to certain people, or to disinherit others. Some may have children with special needs and want to ensure they will be provided. Others may want to leave everything to a charity. As such, we always recommend making a will.

To make a will, one must be at least 15 years old and of sound mind. Thai law stipulates wills may only be made in accordance with forms prescribed by statute. Anything that does not meet this requirement is not a will. Thai law authorises five specific forms of will—written, holographic, public, secret, and oral.

Most clients make written wills, as it is the most practical method. To be valid, a written will must be typed or handwritten, clearly state the date at the time of making, and be signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses. The two witnesses must also sign to certify the signature of the testator.

Witnesses must be at least 20 years of age and not adjudged incompetent. Those with certain special needs such as the blind, deaf or mute may not witness wills.

It is important to remember legatees cannot be witnesses. For example, if you are leaving a gift to your spouse, your spouse cannot witness your will.

When planning an estate, a particularly important decision is to choose the executor(s). The executor will be responsible for settling the estate and carrying out the testator’s wishes. An executor must be at least 20 years old, of sound mind, and not adjudged bankrupt by the court. Importantly, an executor can be a legatee under a will, and this is often what people plan, particularly those who are married or in other committed relationships.

If you have children, it is very important to give some thought to their living arrangements in case both parents pass away. Many people are also concerned about children inheriting significant sums before they know how to properly manage money. You can designate a custodian of property to manage a child’s inheritance until a certain age.

When clients seek our help with estate planning, we normally start with many questions. It is important to compile a list of assets and each person who will be designated to receive gifts under the will. Some people want to leave certain items to certain people such as a treasured necklace for a daughter or an heirloom watch for a son.

Once we have gathered all the information, we begin preparing the will. After finalising it, we host the signing at our office and can even provide witnesses. Once the will is ready, it is important to store it in a safe place and let the executor(s) know how to access it.

When the end finally comes, a probate action is required to appoint an executor or administrator to settle the estate. Following appointment, the executor or administrator will be given a court order, which he or she can use to sell property, close bank accounts, and wind down business in the course of settling the decedent’s estate and distributing property to the decedent’s heirs.

It is never fun to think about death. However, a bit of planning can save loved ones a lot of trouble with business at a time when they will want to focus on family.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 25, 2025
In the Thailand contribution to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, four members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok labor and employment team outline key aspects of dispute resolution in Thailand. Their analysis, part of Lexology Panoramic’s comparative guide covering jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the following areas: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The complete Thailand chapter can be downloaded below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
September 25, 2025
Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Phnom Penh have authored the Cambodia chapter of Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, the latest edition of Lexology Panoramic’s global guide to handling labor and employment disputes. The chapter provides practical insights on a wide range of dispute resolution issues, including: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The full Cambodia chapter is available for download below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
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