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​ 

December 12, 2025
Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act. Thailand’s Overall Approach Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law. Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds. Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion. In practical
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
December 3, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have contributed the Thailand chapter to Litigation 2026, published by Chambers and Partners. Litigation 2026 provides an overview of litigation procedures and practices across numerous jurisdictions. The guide is a key reference for businesses, in-house counsel, and legal professionals seeking to understand and compare litigation frameworks around the world. The Thailand chapter delivers analysis of 14 core areas of litigation, including: General characteristics of the legal system and court structure Litigation funding options and requirements Procedures for initiating lawsuits and pre-trial steps Discovery processes and injunctive relief Trial procedures and rules on evidence Settlement mechanisms and enforcement Damages and judgment considerations Appeal processes and cost issues Alternative dispute resolution and arbitration Developments and future outlook for dispute resolution in Thailand Each section offers practical guidance on navigating Thailand’s litigation landscape, providing useful context for international businesses and legal practitioners involved in dispute resolution matters. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides deliver expert commentary on key practice areas across jurisdictions, allowing readers to compare legislation, procedures, and practical considerations relevant to business operations. The Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, and the full Litigation 2026 guide is available free of charge on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
December 3, 2025
Thailand’s Civil Court has issued a regulation targeting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of pleadings and other documents submitted to the court. Effective November 17, 2025, the regulation aligns with September 2025 guidance from the president of the Supreme Court, and aims to safeguard accuracy, transparency, and public confidence in civil adjudication. The regulation applies to all parties submitting pleadings or any documents to the Civil Court that are prepared using AI tools or contain AI-generated content. It subjects AI used for these purposes to strict requirements on verification, disclosure, and accountability. Core Obligations The regulation imposes four principal obligations: Lawyers who use AI remain subject to duties of honesty, responsibility to the court, professional standards, and legal ethics, including the duty to assess the appropriateness of the AI tool for the work. Parties and lawyers must verify the accuracy and completeness of all facts, legal provisions, and citations in AI-generated content before submission. Parties and lawyers must disclose to the court any AI-generated content by clearly marking the beginning and end of the AI-generated portion with prescribed statements (see below). Additionally, a certification confirming the use of AI must be provided at the end of the pleading or document, stating that AI was used for certain portions and that the party has reviewed and certifies the accuracy of factual and legal content. Parties and lawyers bear the same full legal and ethical responsibility for AI-generated content as they do for personally authored documents; they cannot evade responsibility or avoid liability by citing AI-related errors. Likewise, parties must ensure that any AI-generated content is truthful, accurate, and unbiased. Prescribed Disclosure Language Each instance of AI-generated content must be preceded by the statement “[The following content was prepared using artificial intelligence]” and must end with “[End
Read More