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​ 

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
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction