Litigation in Thailand

Litigation in Thailand sits inside a civil-law architecture where codified rules, judicial procedure and administrative practice determine how disputes are fought, decided and enforced. For businesses and individuals alike, success in Thai litigation depends less on theatrical courtroom tactics and more on careful case-mapping, early preservation of evidence, tactical use of interim measures, and an appreciation of the limits of Thailand’s disclosure and enforcement systems. This article gives a practitioner-level view of how litigation works in Thailand and what litigants should plan for.

The institutional map — which court hears what

Thailand’s adjudicative system is multi-tiered and partly specialized:

• Courts of First Instance (Provincial and District Courts) handle most civil and commercial disputes.

• Specialized central courts hear particular subject matter: the Central Bankruptcy Court; the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court); Central Labour Court (for large labour cases); and the Central Tax Court for tax litigation.

• Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (Dika Court) provide two higher tiers of review: factual and legal errors at appeal, and final legal review at the Supreme Court.

• Administrative Courts hear claims against state agencies; the Constitutional Court addresses constitutional questions.

• Arbitration (domestic and international) is widely used for commercial disputes and is often preferable for cross-border cases; arbitral awards are enforceable in Thailand under the New York Convention.

Selecting the right forum (court vs arbitration; special court vs general civil court) is an early, strategic decision with consequences for procedure, speed and enforceability.

Commencing litigation — pleadings and jurisdiction

A civil action begins when the plaintiff files a plaint (complaint) at the competent court. Jurisdiction is territorial and subject-matter based; parties should verify the correct court (e.g., IP claims into the IP & IT Court). The plaint must set out facts, legal grounds and relief sought; it is typically accompanied by supporting documents.

Thai courts are strict on formalities: incomplete pleadings or missing documents can delay registration. Plaintiffs must pay court fees (usually calculated as a percentage of the claimed sum, subject to statutory caps) and ensure proper service of process.

Evidence, disclosure and proof

Thailand does not have an American-style broad civil discovery system. Instead:

• Evidence is produced at or before trial in line with procedural rules; documentary evidence, contracts, records, witness testimony and expert reports are the mainstays.

• Parties may request the court to order production of specific documents, but “fishing” expeditions are uncommon and courts exercise restraint.

• Witnesses testify under oath; cross-examination exists but is more judicially managed than adversarial systems.

• Experts: courts appoint expert witnesses and may also accept joint or party experts. A court-appointed expert’s report carries weight; litigants should realistically budget for appointing high-quality experts early.

• Oaths and affidavits: Thai procedure still values in-court testimony and sworn statements; documentary evidence alone may be insufficient for contested facts.

The burden of proof in civil cases requires the plaintiff to prove facts on the balance of probabilities. Criminal cases, by contrast, require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Interim reliefs and preservation

Interim measures are crucial because final judgments can take years. Thailand’s courts grant several provisional remedies:

• Preliminary injunctions (interim injunctions) to restrain acts (e.g., continuing infringement, trespass) pending final determination.

• Provisional attachment / preservation orders to freeze or seize assets and prevent dissipation.

• Orders to preserve evidence (seizure of documents, inspections).

• Anticipatory orders: in appropriate cases, courts can order specific actions to preserve rights.

Because Thai courts require convincing prima facie evidence for interim relief, parties should assemble documentary proof before applying. Quick applications backed by crisp affidavits and expert certificates increase the chance of obtaining effective interim protection.

Trial, judgment and appeals

Trials are judge-led. The judge evaluates evidence, hears witnesses and experts, and renders a reasoned judgment. Typical features:

• Duration: first-instance hearings vary with complexity—from several months to multiple years—especially if expert proof is technical.

• Judgments: courts issue written decisions explaining findings of fact and law. Remedies include damages, specific performance, restitution, injunctions and declaratory relief.

• Appeals: parties can appeal factual and legal findings to the Court of Appeal; further appeal to the Supreme Court focuses mainly on legal errors. Appeal windows are short and formal.

Timing can be slow where technical proof or multiple parties are involved; arbitration is often faster for commercial disputes.

Costs and funding

Litigation costs include court fees, lawyer fees, expert fees and disbursements. Court fees depend on the quantum claimed. Attorney fees are privately negotiated—some firms work on hourly rates, fixed fees or conditional arrangements for certain claims—but contingency arrangements are less common and subject to professional rules. Consider litigation funding alternatives (bank guarantees, third-party funders) for large, high-risk matters, but check enforceability and ethics rules.

Enforcement of domestic judgments

A Thai civil judgment is enforced by the Court Execution Office. Common enforcement tools:

• Writs of execution to seize movable assets or bank accounts.

• Orders for attachment and sale of immovable property via public auction.

• Garnishee orders and other forms of execution against third-party assets.

Priority rules for creditors (e.g., registered mortgages) are enforced; unsecured creditors often collect only after secured debts are paid. Enforcement may be contested, leading to further litigation or objections to execution.

Foreign judgments and awards

Thailand does not automatically recognize foreign court judgments. Foreign money judgments typically must be re-litigated in Thailand (though the foreign judgment is presented as evidence). Arbitral awards under the New York Convention are enforced directly and more reliably—hence the strong preference for arbitration clauses in cross-border contracts.

Practical and tactical considerations

• Preserve evidence now: lock down e-mail servers, contracts, original documents and witnesses.

• Interim measures early: obtain asset freezes or injunctions before assets move offshore.

• Use experts smartly: technical cases live or die by expert reports; commission respected independent experts.

• Consider arbitration: for international commercial disputes, arbitration offers speed, confidentiality and straightforward enforcement of awards.

• Local counsel is essential: only Thai-licensed lawyers may appear—foreign counsel can act as advisors but not as advocates.

• Assess enforcement at the start: a judgment without enforceable assets is hollow; map asset locations and registration status early.

• Mediation: courts encourage mediation; successful mediation avoids the delays and costs of judgment and enforcement.

Common litigation types and trends

Commercial contract disputes, construction litigation (defects, delay), property and land disputes (title and boundary), IP litigation (handled by the IP & IT Court), insolvency and bankruptcy cases, labour disputes and family law cases dominate Thai dockets. Cross-border insolvency and enforcement issues are rising with regional investment.

Final practical note

Litigation in Thailand rewards disciplined preparation more than courtroom showmanship. Early planning—choosing forum, securing interim relief, preserving evidence, and designing enforceable remedies—matters far more to outcomes than protracted trial skirmishes. Where possible, build dispute resolution into contracts (clear milestones, objective triggers, choice of law, and arbitration) and prepare a litigation strategy that treats a judgment as only one step of a broader enforcement plan.