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 7, 2015

Marrying a Thai Citizen Is a Straightforward Affair

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Thailand is a popular tourist destination attracting millions of foreigners to its vibrant cities and windswept shores each year. While many of these foreigners fall in love with the food, others fall in love with the people. Fortunately for those who are love-struck, getting married in Thailand is an easy process, as the country has a well-established system for foreigners to marry Thai citizens.

To illustrate how the process works, we will look at the lives of David and Suda, a fictional couple who would like to marry under Thai law.

Background

David, a U.S. citizen, fell in love with Suda, who is a Thai citizen. As David’s time in Thailand was coming to a close, he realized that he did not want his relationship with Suda to end. He wanted a real future for the relationship. Suda, upon hearing this, was thrilled. She had been dreading David’s departure and hoped to cement their relationship.

In order to move forward with their marriage, David and Suda must comply with certain procedures and requirements and provide certain documents when registering their marriage at the district office.

Preparations

David must obtain an Affirmation of Freedom to Marry. This can be obtained at a foreigner’s national embassy or consulate in Bangkok. Since David is a U.S. citizen, he must go to the U.S. embassy. David must bring his passport and is required to prove through a divorce or death certificate that any previous marriage has been legally dissolved.

After David obtains the Affirmation of Freedom to Marry, he must go to a translation office to translate it into Thai. Afterward, this must be approved by a consular official in the Legalization Division of the Foreign Ministry’s Consular Affairs Department.

As Suda is more than 20 years old, she must bring her original ID card and an original Certificate of House Registration along with copies of each to the district office.

Prenuptial Agreements

David is a cautious person and so wants to enter into a prenuptial agreement before marrying Suda. His parents went through an ugly divorce, as they could not agree on how to divide their assets. David wants to ensure he avoids such a situation.

A prenuptial agreement must be made in accordance with Thai law so that it is enforceable in the event of a divorce. It must be made in writing, written in Thai, signed in front of two witnesses prior to the marriage and registered at the local district office at the time the couple register their marriage.

David and Suda should seek legal consultation to draft their prenuptial agreement in accordance with Thai law as outlined in the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand.

The Marriage

After all of the preparatory administrative and legal requirements have been fulfilled, David and Suda can get legally married.

They simply need to go to the local district office to register their marriage legally. David must bring his Affirmation of Freedom to Marry, an authenticated translation, his passport, and an authenticated copy of his passport. Suda must bring her original ID card and Certificate of House Registration along with copies of each and proof that any previous marriages have been legally dissolved.

However, as much as David and Suda would like to celebrate their marriage with friends and family and embark on their honeymoon, the administrative process is not over yet.

The marriage certificate that is issued to them by the local district office is in Thai. This must be translated into English, and the translation must be certified by the Foreign Ministry. The certified and translated marriage certificate must then be brought to the U.S. embassy to report the marriage.

After registering their marriage at the U.S. embassy, David and Suda can finally take off to Phuket to celebrate their marriage and live happily ever after.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
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