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

April 28, 2023

Overview of Commercial Litigation in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Legal Business

Thailand’s legal system is based on European continental civil law systems, with a three-tier court system. Precedents set by the Thai Supreme Court are merely considered as examples of the application of laws and are not binding on Thai courts.

While the country’s judiciary and dispute resolution mechanisms are well developed, some aspects can be unfamiliar or even surprising to counsel unfamiliar with the Thai court system. This article introduces some of the Thai civil court procedures and practices, and covers several key issues it is important to understand regarding civil litigation in Thailand.

Offers of compromise or settlement

In Thailand, there is no such thing as an ‘offer without prejudice’. Anything put in writing can be used against the offering party. Therefore, compromises, settlements, and offers to compromise or settle should not be made before consulting with legal counsel. Similarly, parties at trial or anticipating litigation should be cautious in all communications with the opposing party.

Location of assets

Before initiating litigation, plaintiffs should investigate the nature and extent of the defendant’s assets in Thailand and abroad. A monetary judgment is of limited value if the defendant has little or no recoverable assets. Therefore, any information a claimant has on the opposing party should be assessed at the beginning of the case or as soon as is reasonably possible.

Language of documents

All documents submitted to a Thai court must be in the Thai language. Foreign documents must be the originals or certified copies, and certain documents also need to be notarised and then authenticated by a Thai consular official.

Court costs

A plaintiff must pay a court filing fee when submitting a case. This is usually 2% of the claim amount but will not exceed THB 200,000 per action for claims of up to THB 50 million. There is an additional 0.1% calculated on the amount of a claim exceeding the THB 50 million threshold. If the suit is successful, some of these advanced court costs are usually recoverable.

Additionally, non-resident plaintiffs may be required to deposit security with the court to insure against a potential award of court costs in favour of the defendant.

Appeals

In civil cases, appeals must be filed within one month of the judgment being read. Extensions may be granted at the court’s discretion if requested and reasonably justified.

At each level, the appealing party must deposit additional court costs of 2% of the judgment amount, with a maximum of THB 200,000 for claims of up to THB 50 million and an extra 0.1% calculated on claim amounts exceeding THB 50 million. The appealing party may also be required to post an additional guarantee to ensure its ability to cover judgment should the appeal be unsuccessful.

The Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court are not trial courts, and generally no new evidence may be introduced after the trial in the lower court is completed. Appeals at all levels are resolved through written pleadings and supporting documentation only. There is no live oral advocacy.

In 2015, Thailand changed its appeal system from a right-based system, which allows any party to appeal against the lower courts to the Supreme Court, to a permission-based system, where a judgment or an appellate court order is final unless an appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court. This change gave the Supreme Court the power to grant permission to file an appeal to the Supreme Court if it deems the question a significant matter worthy of a decision. Under this new discretionary system of review, only a minority of Supreme Court appeals are accepted by the Supreme Court.

Length of trials

Unless settled by compromise, civil litigation typically lasts between 12 and 18 months, counting from the initiation of action until a judgment by the court of first instance. Cases in the Courts of Appeal usually take an additional 18-24 months, with a similar period for appeals to the Supreme Court.

Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

Foreign judgments cannot be enforced in Thai courts. Thailand is not a party to any treaty or convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. As such, a creditor must bring a new lawsuit to the relevant Thai court to obtain satisfaction. This means that a foreign judgment creditor must file a court case against a Thai debtor in Thailand and submit the foreign court’s judgment as evidence. The Supreme Court has ruled that for a foreign judgment to be admitted as evidence, it must be a final, dispositive order.

Arbitration and alternative dispute resolution

Deciding whether to litigate or seek alternative dispute resolution is commonly an anticipatory decision made by the parties to a contract before a dispute exists. Parties either specifically elect mediation or arbitration uniquely tailored to their needs or leave the matter of dispute resolution to the responsible court.

Some key reasons for choosing arbitration over court litigation are flexibility and the ability to tailor how a party’s dispute would be resolved by selecting the arbitration rules and institute, the venue, and the number of arbitrators. Administrative costs and arbitrator fees are pretty reasonable at local institutes and may help decrease the overall cost of dispute resolution in Thailand.

Thailand has three arbitration institutes: the Thai Arbitration Institute of the Office of the Judiciary, the Thai Commercial Arbitration Institute of the Board of Trade, and the Thailand Arbitration Center under the Ministry of Justice.

Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards

In general, foreign arbitral awards are recognised in Thailand if they fall within the recognition of treaties, conventions, and international agreements to which Thailand is a party – and only to the extent that Thailand is committed to be bound by them. Thailand is a party to both the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 and the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1927. Awards brought under the auspices of the former are easier to enforce than under the latter. Foreign arbitral awards can be executed in Thailand without having to be relitigated, although enforcement does require the filing of an enforcement claim with the Thai court of jurisdiction for execution against a debtor’s assets.

 

This article was originally published in Disputes Yearbook 2023, a publication from The Legal 500’s Legal Business magazine.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More