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​ 

March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
Read More
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
Read More
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
Read More
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
Read More