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​ 

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
August 18, 2026
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.
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
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