Two Supreme Court decisions published in October 2026 make the point sharply. In one, a father recovered 800,000 baht for the loss of his daughter’s support only because a late marriage had made her his legitimate child. In the other, an insurer that paid out above its policy limit turned round and recovered the excess from its own insured. This guide sets out who can claim, what the Civil and Commercial Code allows, and the deadline that quietly ends most claims.

What a Wrongful Death Claim in Thailand Covers

There is no separate Thai statute on fatal accidents. A wrongful death claim in Thailand is an ordinary tort claim under Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code, with Section 443 adding the heads of damage that apply when the victim dies. Where a vehicle is involved, Section 437 shifts the burden onto the person in control of it, who is liable for damage caused by the vehicle unless he proves the damage arose from force majeure or the fault of the injured person.

Fault is still apportioned. Section 442, applying Section 223, reduces the award where the victim contributed to the accident: riding without a helmet, crossing against the light, or driving after drinking all cut the figure. The civil case runs alongside any criminal prosecution for causing death by negligence, and where the driver has been tried, the civil court deciding a claim connected with the offence must accept the facts found in the criminal judgment (Criminal Procedure Code section 46), so a conviction for causing the death usually settles the driver’s fault. Our general guide to the aftermath of a crash is at legal advice after an accident in Thailand.

Who Can Sue, and Who Cannot

Two distinct sets of claims arise on a death, and they belong to different people.

• Claims that belonged to the deceased: medical bills and lost earnings where death was not instantaneous, and property damage. These form part of the estate under Sections 1599 and 1600, and are pursued by the heirs or by the court-appointed estate administrator.
• The loss-of-support claim: this one is personal to the dependant. Section 443 paragraph 3 gives it to a person who was deprived of support that the deceased owed him by law.

That phrase decides everything. The duty must exist in the Code, not merely in fact. A spouse qualifies under Section 1461, a legitimate child under Section 1564, and a parent under Section 1563, which obliges a legitimate child to maintain his parents.

Who does not qualify is the harder lesson. An unmarried partner of twenty years has no statutory right to support, however complete the financial dependence. Nor does the father of a child he never legitimated: the duty under Section 1563 runs from a legitimate child only. Supreme Court 6436/2562 is the clean illustration, and the mechanism is explained in our companion article on the legitimate child in Thailand.

The 6436/2562 example

A young woman was killed as a motorcycle passenger on 3 April 2016. Her parents had lived together without registering a marriage, so she was illegitimate and her father was, in law, a stranger to her. On 3 May 2016 the parents married. An arbitrator awarded the father 800,000 baht plus interest for loss of support, and the insurer sought to set the award aside under Section 40 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 as contrary to public order. The Supreme Court refused: Section 1557 made the daughter legitimate from birth, so the duty of support had existed all along and the father’s loss was a real one.

What You Can Recover Under Sections 443 and 445

The absence of a bereavement award is the single biggest difference from the common-law systems most expatriate families come from. Thai awards for loss of support are also modest by Western standards, because they track the deceased’s actual earning capacity in Thailand rather than a notional lifetime multiplier. Our plain-English note on how courts quantify compensation is at damages under Thai law.

Where the deceased owned assets in Thailand, the estate and the tort claim must be handled together, because the administrator is usually the person who has to bring the estate’s half of the case. The sequence is set out in our Thailand inheritance guide for foreigners.

Compulsory Insurance, Policy Limits and the Real Defendant

Every registered vehicle must carry compulsory motor insurance, known as Por Ror Bor, under the Protection for Motor Vehicle Accident Victims Act. It pays a preliminary sum quickly, without waiting for fault to be decided, and a larger sum once the victim is shown not to have caused the accident.

Treat those figures as indicative and confirm the current schedule with the regulator, the Office of Insurance Commission, because they are set by subordinate legislation and have been raised more than once. Por Ror Bor is a floor, not a settlement: it almost never covers a genuine loss-of-support claim, and accepting it does not release the driver from the balance.

The reverse risk falls on drivers and employers. In decision 502/2569, published in the Supreme Court database on 7 October 2026, an employee’s truck damaged two separate third parties in one accident, another truck and a house. The policy covered third-party property damage up to 600,000 baht; the insurer paid 751,400 baht and recovered the 151,400 baht excess from the driver and the insured employer, who was jointly liable for his employee’s negligence. We analysed that case in insurance policy limits in Thailand. If you employ drivers here, the policy limit is the insurer’s ceiling, not yours.

The One-Year Deadline Under Section 448

Section 448 bars a tort claim one year from the day the injured party knew of the wrongful act and of the person liable, and in any event ten years from the act itself. Where the act is also a criminal offence carrying a longer prescription period, that longer period applies to the civil claim.

One year passes very quickly when a family is abroad, waiting on a police file, arranging repatriation and then dealing with probate. Two practical warnings. First, the clock runs from knowledge, not from the conclusion of the criminal case, so waiting for the verdict is a common and expensive mistake. Second, where the claim has to be brought by an estate administrator, the court appointment itself takes months and must be started early.

Building a Wrongful Death Claim in Thailand: Practical Steps

1. Obtain the police accident report, the death certificate and the autopsy report. These are the backbone of both the criminal and the civil file.
2. Identify every potential defendant: the driver, the vehicle owner, the employer if the driver was on duty, and both insurers.
3. Prove the legal relationship. Marriage certificate, birth certificate plus evidence of legitimation, or the court order. Without it the loss-of-support claim fails at the first hurdle.
4. Document the dependency: remittance records, bank statements, school fees, rent paid. Courts award what is proved, not what is asserted.
5. Claim the Por Ror Bor preliminary payment immediately, in writing, while reserving the balance of the claim.
6. Start the estate administration application in parallel, and diary the Section 448 deadline from the date of the accident.

Foreign documents need certified Thai translation and, in most courts, legalisation. Our published rates for this kind of work are at legal fees in Thailand.

Frequently Asked Questions

This article was written and reviewed by Sébastien Brousseau, LL.B., B.Sc., who has been based in Thailand since 2004 and has run ThaiLawOnline since 2006. If your family is facing a wrongful death claim in Thailand, or you need an estate administrator appointed before the Section 448 year runs out, contact ThaiLawOnline and we will tell you who can claim, what the realistic range is, and what has to be filed first.

This article is general information about Thai law and is not legal advice. Compensation figures depend on evidence and on the court, and the compulsory insurance amounts above are indicative and subject to change by subordinate legislation. Please obtain advice on your own circumstances before acting.

Decision 6436/2562, added to the Supreme Court database on 11 October 2026, allowed a father to keep an arbitration award of 800,000 baht for the loss of his daughter’s support, even though the marriage that legitimated her was registered a month after she died in a road accident. This guide explains the three routes to legitimation, what Section 1557 backdates, and what being a legitimate child in Thailand means in practice for Thai-foreign families.

Legitimate Child in Thailand: What the Status Actually Means

Section 1546 of the Civil and Commercial Code states that a child born of a woman who is not married to a man is deemed the legitimate child of that woman. The father is simply absent from the legal picture, whatever the couple’s domestic reality.

The practical consequences are wider than most parents expect. Until the child becomes a legitimate child in Thailand, the mother holds sole parental power under Section 1566, the father cannot be ordered to pay maintenance under Section 1564, he is not an heir of his own child, and he has no standing to consent to a passport application or to resist the child being taken abroad.

One point surprises almost everyone: naming the father on the birth certificate does nothing. Nor does paying for everything, living together for fifteen years, or appearing in the house registration book. Only one of the three routes in Section 1547 creates the legal link. Our detailed walkthrough of that process sits at legalisation of a father’s rights in Thailand.

The Three Routes to Legitimation Under Section 1547

Section 1547 is short: a child born of parents who were not married to each other becomes legitimate by the subsequent marriage of the parents, by registration at the district office, or by a judgment of the court. Each route has a different cost, a different timeline and a different failure point.

Section 1555 lists the circumstances in which a paternity action may be brought, including cohabitation during the period of possible conception, documents acknowledging the child, and public reputation as the father. Where the mother is unmarried and cooperative, the marriage route is almost always faster and cheaper than litigation.

Supreme Court 6436/2562: A Marriage After the Death Still Counted

The facts are stark. A couple lived together as husband and wife without registering a marriage, and their daughter was accordingly illegitimate. On 3 April 2016 a car insured by the insurer in the case collided with a motorcycle on which the daughter was a passenger. She died at the scene, aged about twenty-one.

On 3 May 2016, one month after the accident, her parents registered their marriage. The parents then pursued the insurance claim through arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded the father 800,000 baht plus interest for loss of support. The insurer asked the Civil Court to set the award aside under Section 40 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545, arguing it offended public order. The Civil Court refused, and the insurer appealed to the Supreme Court (black case พ.211/2562).

The holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Under Section 1557 the parents’ marriage made the daughter a legitimate child from the date of her birth. As a legitimate child she had owed her parents a duty of maintenance, so her death through the tort genuinely deprived the father of support he was legally entitled to. Enforcing the award was therefore not contrary to public order or good morals, and costs of the appeal were waived. The entry is published in the Supreme Court database at deka.in.th.

What makes the decision useful is its sequencing. The accident, the death and the arbitration all preceded the marriage. The court still treated the status as having existed from birth, because that is what Section 1557 says.

Why Backdating Matters for Inheritance and Money

Section 1557 provides that becoming a legitimate child in Thailand takes effect from the date of the child’s birth. It is not forward-looking, and that distinction decides real money.

• Inheritance both ways. A legitimate child is a first-class statutory heir of the father under Section 1629(1), and the father becomes an heir of the child. Without legitimation the traffic runs one way only.
• Maintenance. Section 1564 obliges parents to maintain a legitimate child; Section 1563 obliges the child to maintain the parents. Decision 6436/2562 turns on the second of these.
• Loss-of-support claims. Section 443 allows a person deprived of lawful support by a wrongful death to claim compensation. The claim exists only where a legal duty of support existed.
• Parental power and custody. Legitimation brings the father within Sections 1566 and 1567, so a court can allocate custody between two legal parents rather than confirming the mother by default.

There is a nuance worth holding onto. For succession purposes, Section 1627 already deems an illegitimate child who has been acknowledged by the father to be his descendant, so such a child can inherit from the father without full legitimation. The reverse is not true: the father inherits from the child, and acquires parental power, only once legitimation is complete. Our Thailand inheritance guide for foreigners sets out the six classes of heirs in full.

A Legitimate Child in Thailand: What It Changes for a Family

The route to a legitimate child in Thailand is rarely the problem; noticing that it was never taken is. The commonest pattern we see is a foreign father, a Thai mother, a child born before any marriage, and a family that assumes the paperwork is in order because the father’s name appears on the birth certificate. It is not in order, and the gap usually surfaces at the worst moment: a separation, a death, a hospital consent form, or a passport renewal.

Four situations turn on the child’s status. Custody and contact if the relationship ends, which we cover at child custody in Thailand. Enforceable maintenance, explained at child support in Thailand. Thai inheritance, where an unmarried partner and an unlegitimated child are both exposed; the comparison at girlfriend versus wife in Thailand is blunt about it. And immigration, since a Non-O extension based on a Thai child depends on a legal parent-child relationship, not a biological one.

Where a claim against an insurer is involved, the status question and the policy question arrive together. We looked at the second half of that problem in insurance policy limits in Thailand.

Documents and Practical Steps

1. Decide the route. If both parents can marry and want to, the marriage route legitimates the child automatically and needs no separate filing.
2. Gather identity documents: the father’s passport, the mother’s Thai ID card and house registration, the child’s birth certificate and the child’s own ID where issued.
3. For the registration route, expect the district office to summon the mother and the child for consent, and expect a 60-day clock.
4. For the court route, arrange DNA testing early and collect evidence of cohabitation at the probable time of conception.
5. Once legitimation is registered, update the house registration, the child’s records and, critically, any Thai will. Legitimation changes the heirs.

Foreign documents will need certified Thai translation and, depending on the office, legalisation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Allow time for that rather than discovering it at the counter.

Frequently Asked Questions

This article was written and reviewed by Sébastien Brousseau, LL.B., B.Sc., who has been based in Thailand since 2004 and has run ThaiLawOnline since 2006. If you need to legitimate a child, respond to a paternity claim, or check how being a legitimate child in Thailand affects a Thai will or an insurance claim, contact ThaiLawOnline and we will tell you which of the three routes fits your situation and what it costs.

This article is general information about Thai law and is not legal advice. Court outcomes depend on the evidence and on facts specific to each family, and district office practice varies. Please obtain advice on your own circumstances before acting.

What Is a Permanent Establishment in Thailand?

“Permanent establishment” (PE) is the threshold that decides whether a foreign company’s business profits can be taxed in Thailand. The idea comes in two layers. Thai domestic law asks whether the company is “carrying on business in Thailand”, a broad test under Sections 66 and 76 bis of the Revenue Code. Thailand’s 60-plus double tax agreements (DTAs) then narrow that test with the treaty concept of a permanent establishment: a fixed place of business, a construction site lasting beyond the treaty threshold, services performed in Thailand over a set period, or a dependent agent.

The two layers work in one direction only. A DTA can protect a foreign company from Thai tax that domestic law would impose, but it never creates a tax liability that domestic law does not. So the analysis always starts with the Revenue Code, and the provision that catches most foreign SMEs is Section 76 bis.

Section 76 bis: Deemed Carrying On of Business

Section 76 bis of the Revenue Code provides that a company incorporated under foreign law which has an employee, agent or go-between in Thailand for carrying on its business, and thereby derives income or gains in Thailand, is deemed to be carrying on business in Thailand. The person in Thailand, whether employee, representative or intermediary, is treated as the foreign company’s representative and bears the duty to file returns and pay corporate income tax on its behalf.

Notice what is missing: there is no requirement of an office, a branch, or any registration. A single individual in Thailand who regularly solicits orders or negotiates deals that produce Thai-source income can be enough. That individual, or the Thai company playing that role, can then be assessed personally, which is why acting as an informal agent for an offshore principal is riskier than most people signing such arrangements understand.

Domestic Law vs Tax Treaties

If the foreign company is resident in a treaty country, the DTA’s permanent establishment article decides whether Thailand may actually tax the business profits. Treaty PEs typically include a place of management, branch, office, factory or workshop; a building site or installation project exceeding the treaty period (commonly 3 to 6 months); services furnished in Thailand beyond a set duration; and a dependent agent who habitually exercises authority to conclude contracts in the company’s name.

Equally important is who does not create a treaty PE: an independent agent (a broker or general commission agent acting in the ordinary course of its own business) and activities that are merely preparatory or auxiliary, such as storage, display, purchasing or collecting information. A foreign company claiming treaty protection must be able to document its tax residence (a certificate from its home tax authority) and the independence of its Thai counterpart.

Which Activities Create Tax Exposure

The dividing line is authority and risk. A distributor who takes title to goods and profits from the resale margin is a customer of the foreign company. An “agent” who finds buyers, negotiates prices and passes orders home for signature is the foreign company’s taxable presence, whatever the contract calls them.

What Tax Follows: CIT, Withholding and VAT

Once a foreign company is deemed to carry on business in Thailand, corporate income tax (currently 20%) applies to the net profits attributable to the Thai business, under Sections 66 and 76 bis of the Revenue Code. Where net profits cannot be properly determined, the assessment officer may instead tax gross receipts at 5% under Section 71(1), often a worse outcome, since it ignores costs entirely.

By contrast, a foreign company not carrying on business in Thailand pays only withholding tax under Section 70 on certain Thai-source income (dividends, interest, royalties, service fees), at 15%, or 10% on dividends, or the lower treaty rate, collected by the Thai payer. VAT adds a further layer: sales of goods or services in Thailand can trigger VAT registration and liability, and under Section 82/1 the local agent of an overseas supplier can be made jointly responsible for the VAT. Disputes over back assessments routinely cover several tax years plus penalties and surcharge, so the downside of getting this wrong is rarely small.

How to Reduce Permanent Establishment Risk

• Use a true distributor, not an agent. The Thai partner buys in its own name, at its own risk, and resells. No authority to sign for the principal.
• Keep contract conclusion offshore, genuinely. If the Thai side negotiates everything and head office only rubber-stamps, the treaty’s dependent-agent test looks through the formality.
• Incorporate when the presence is real. A Thai subsidiary pays tax on its own margin and contains the exposure: see our guide on how to register a company in Thailand and the options for foreign business in Thailand under BOI, FBL or the Treaty of Amity.
• Never use nominees to dress up a presence. A nominee structure adds criminal exposure under the Foreign Business Act to the tax problem: see Thai nominee shareholders.
• Document everything. Tax residence certificates, agency agreements, intercompany pricing and the real decision trail are what win or lose a Revenue Department audit.

For the wider legal framework that applies to foreign companies trading here (licensing, contracts and liability), see our overview of business law in Thailand.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Revenue Code and the full list of Thailand’s double tax agreements are published by the Thai Revenue Department; in any dispute, the Thai text and the treaty’s authentic languages control.

Last reviewed: 11 October 2026. Read in Thai against the Revenue Code: sections 70, 71(1), 76 bis and 82/1 and the income tax rate schedule (corporate rates (2)(a) to (c)). Corrected: withholding under section 70 is 15% but 10% on dividends. Not verified: the treaty thresholds, which vary by treaty, and the description of Revenue Department audit practice.

This article was written and reviewed by Sébastien Brousseau, LL.B., B.Sc., based in Thailand since 2004 and running ThaiLawOnline since 2006. If you sell into Thailand through a local agent, employee or distributor and want your permanent establishment in Thailand exposure assessed, or a compliant structure set up, contact ThaiLawOnline for a practical review of your contracts and arrangements.

This article is general information only and not legal or tax advice. Permanent establishment questions depend on your treaty, contracts and actual conduct; consult a qualified advisor before acting.

What Counts as a Breach of Contract in Thailand

Thai law does not use a single statutory definition of “breach”. Instead, the Civil and Commercial Code speaks of non-performance: the debtor fails to perform the obligation at all, performs late, or performs defectively. Most written agreements used by foreigners in Thailand (sale and purchase agreements, leases, construction contracts, loan agreements, service contracts) fall under Book II of the CCC (Obligations) and the specific contract rules of Book III.

Three practical points surprise newcomers. First, most contracts are valid without any special form, but some are unenforceable in court unless written evidence exists or registration was made (land sales, long leases, mortgages). Second, Thai courts read contracts fairly literally, so the written text matters more than emails about intentions. Third, good faith under CCC Section 5 runs through everything: a party exercising rights purely to injure the other side will not be protected.

Default and the Formal Demand

Before claiming most remedies, the other party must be in default (pid nat). Under CCC Section 204, if a time for performance is fixed by the calendar, the debtor is automatically in default when that date passes. If no date is fixed, the creditor must first make a warning or demand, in practice a formal demand letter (notice) sent by a lawyer, and default begins only after that demand goes unanswered.

Under CCC Section 205, a debtor is not in default where performance failed for reasons not attributable to them. The demand letter stage is not a formality: it fixes the date from which default interest runs, it is often what brings the other side to the table, and Thai judges expect to see it. Skipping straight to court without a demand is a common and avoidable mistake in a breach of contract in Thailand dispute.

Remedies: Damages, Specific Performance and Rescission

Thai law gives the injured party three main remedies, which can sometimes be combined.

• Specific performance: under CCC Section 213, the creditor may ask the court to compel actual performance, unless the nature of the obligation does not permit it. Thai courts grant this more readily than common-law courts, especially for land transfers.
• Damages: under CCC Sections 215 and 222, the injured party can claim compensation for the damage ordinarily arising from the breach, plus special damages the breaching party could have foreseen. Thai courts award proven losses; speculative or punitive claims fail.
• Rescission: under CCC Sections 386 to 391, where the contract or the law gives a right of rescission, each party must restore the other to their former position, and rescission does not bar an additional claim for damages.

Default interest on money claims is 5% per year under CCC Section 224 (3% base rate under Section 7 plus 2%), following the 2021 amendment; older contracts citing 7.5% are applying the pre-2021 rate. A contract can set a higher rate, subject to the penalty-reduction rules below and to the Interest ceilings in specific laws.

Deposits and Penalty Clauses

Two clauses do most of the work in Thai contract disputes. An earnest deposit (mat jam) given at the conclusion of a contract is forfeited if the giver breaches, and must be returned if the receiver breaches (CCC Sections 377 and 378). Thai law does not double it: Section 378(3) only requires the deposit to be returned, and anything more has to be claimed as damages. But not every payment labelled “deposit” qualifies: the Supreme Court held in Dika 1511/2569 that a large instalment paid after the contract was concluded was not earnest money and could not simply be forfeited. See our analysis of condo deposit forfeiture in Thailand.

A penalty clause (liquidated damages) is enforceable under CCC Sections 379 to 381, but with a crucial Thai twist: under Section 383, a court may reduce a disproportionately high penalty to a reasonable amount. You cannot contract out of this judicial power. Conversely, if your actual loss exceeds the penalty, Section 380 lets you claim the difference if you can prove it.

Time Limits: Prescription Periods

Prescription (limitation) kills more contract claims in Thailand than bad evidence does. The general period under CCC Section 193/30 is ten years, but shorter periods apply to everyday claims, and under Section 193/11 the parties cannot extend them by agreement.

The clock generally runs from the moment the claim can be enforced (Section 193/12). A written acknowledgment of debt or a part payment interrupts prescription and restarts it (Section 193/14). If you are close to a deadline, filing the complaint is the only certain way to stop the clock.

Suing in Thai Courts: Procedure, Costs and Enforcement

A civil claim is filed in the court where the defendant is domiciled or where the cause of action arose. Court fees are generally 2% of the amount claimed, with caps: see our note on court fees in Thai civil cases. Small claims go to the Kwaeng (district) courts; consumer cases benefit from a simplified, plaintiff-friendly procedure under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551.

Plan your claim once, properly. Thai procedure bars splitting one dispute into successive lawsuits: the Supreme Court dismissed an insurer’s second claim arising from a policy it had already litigated (Dika 833/2569), the trap we explain in suing twice in Thailand. A first-instance judgment typically takes around one to two years; appeals add more.

Winning is half the job. If the debtor does not pay voluntarily, enforcement goes through the Legal Execution Department: seizure and auction of assets, garnishment of bank accounts and salaries. Judgments are enforceable for ten years. Before suing, it is worth checking whether the debtor has assets in Thailand at all, and remember that a personal guarantee in Thailand gives you a second pocket to claim against, within the limits of CCC Section 686.

Arbitration and Settlement

Commercial contracts often contain an arbitration clause under the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545. Thai courts respect these clauses and will enforce awards, including foreign awards under the New York Convention, with only narrow grounds for refusal. Arbitration is faster and confidential, but costs more upfront.

Most Thai contract disputes settle. A settlement recorded as a compromise agreement under CCC Sections 850 to 852 extinguishes the original claims, so its wording deserves as much care as the original contract. Courts actively encourage mediation at the start of proceedings, and a mediated settlement entered in court becomes enforceable like a judgment.

Frequently Asked Questions

The official Thai text of the Civil and Commercial Code is published by the Office of the Council of State on krisdika.go.th; in a dispute, the Thai text controls over any English translation.

Last reviewed: 11 October 2026. Read in Thai against the Civil and Commercial Code: sections 204, 205, 213, 222, 224, 377, 378, 380, 383, 193/11, 193/14, 193/30, 193/33 and 193/34; the court fee against Table 1 annexed to the Civil Procedure Code; and Supreme Court Decisions 1511/2569 and 833/2569. Corrected: an earnest deposit is returned, not returned twofold, when the receiver breaches (section 378(3)). Not verified: the time estimates for first-instance judgments and the description of arbitration practice.

This article was written and reviewed by Sébastien Brousseau, LL.B., B.Sc., based in Thailand since 2004 and running ThaiLawOnline since 2006. If you are dealing with a breach of contract in Thailand (drafting a demand letter, assessing a claim, or defending one), our Thai lawyers can review your contract and give you a realistic assessment through our online legal services.

This article is general information only and not legal advice. Contract disputes turn on their specific facts and documents; consult a qualified Thai lawyer before acting.

Foreign creditors miss this window regularly. The order is published in Thai, in the Royal Gazette and in a newspaper, and nobody posts it to you. Supreme Court decision 5294/2568, handed down in 2025 and published this month, shows how little sympathy the Supreme Court has for a creditor who files late, even a government agency with a genuine reason for the delay.

How a Thai Bankruptcy Claim Actually Works

Thai insolvency runs under the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483. A creditor petitions the Central Bankruptcy Court, and if the court is satisfied the debtor is insolvent it issues an order for absolute receivership, the pithak sap det khat. From that moment the debtor loses control of its assets and the Official Receiver at the Legal Execution Department takes over.

The receiver then collects claims, examines them, and distributes whatever the estate holds. Nothing is paid to an unsecured creditor who has not filed; a secured creditor keeps its rights over the collateral without filing (section 95). Suing the debtor separately does not help, because once the receivership order is made the court process is the only route. Our glossary entry on bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 sets out the stages, and dissolution and liquidation explains the different situation where a solvent company is wound up voluntarily.

The Two-Month Window Under Section 91

Section 91 paragraph 1 is short and unforgiving. A creditor must submit its claim to the Official Receiver within two months from the date the absolute receivership order is published. The claim can cover debts that arose before the order, including contingent and unliquidated ones, but it has to be filed in that window. One concession matters to foreign creditors: if the creditor is outside Thailand, the Official Receiver may extend the period by up to two more months (section 91 paragraph 1). It is the receiver’s discretion, not an entitlement, so ask for it in writing and early.

The clock runs from publication, not from the day you heard about it. For a creditor based outside Thailand, that means the two months may be half gone before anyone in your office knows the debtor has collapsed. Monitoring matters more than reacting, especially where you have ongoing exposure to a single Thai counterparty.

Dika 5294/2568: Three Years Late and the Claim Was Refused

The debtor was a construction contractor. In July 2016 the Central Bankruptcy Court placed its estate under absolute receivership. A government agency that had hired the contractor in 2009 to build a courthouse in Nakhon Pathom had terminated the contract in February 2015, reserving its right to claim damages. It filed a proof of claim in February 2017 for roughly 78 million baht in penalties, damages and interest.

Later the agency discovered something it had not claimed for. An independent inspection found structural defects in the ground-floor parking slab. The agency contracted repairs in December 2018, the work was accepted in August 2019, and the repair cost came to 8,638,840 baht. It told the receiver, and the receiver did not act.

The agency then petitioned the court for leave to file this additional claim, under section 91/1. It filed that petition on 2 September 2022, roughly three years after the repair figure was final. It argued that force majeure, including the COVID-19 restrictions, had prevented an earlier filing.

The Central Bankruptcy Court dismissed the petition. The Appeal Court for Specialised Cases affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed again, and its reasoning is the part worth keeping.

Force Majeure and Section 91/1: A Narrow Door, Not an Open One

Section 91/1 lets a creditor who missed the two-month deadline ask the court for leave to file anyway. The creditor must show that force majeure prevented a timely claim. The section sets no deadline for making that request, and the agency read the silence as freedom.

The Supreme Court read it the other way. Where a statute fixes no period, the request must still be made within a reasonable time after the obstacle has ended. Force majeure excuses the original delay; it does not convert section 91/1 into a claim you can bring whenever you like. And even a successful late claim ranks behind what has already happened: under section 91/1 paragraph 2 the late creditor is paid only from assets still in the estate after the distributions made before it filed.

On the facts the delay was plainly unreasonable. The agency knew of the defects in 2017 and 2018 and had a final figure by August 2019, before the pandemic began. Its explanation that it needed to verify the numbers internally was rejected, because the inspection and repair contracts had already fixed the loss. Three years of silence was unfair to the creditors who had filed on time and would have had their dividends disturbed.

There is a wider principle in the judgment. Bankruptcy exists to deal with the estate in an orderly way for all creditors at once, and to let the debtor reach a conclusion. Late claims cut against both aims, so the courts police them tightly. Compare this with ordinary civil limitation periods, which are generous by comparison.

A Live Example: The JKN Receivership Order

This is not a theoretical problem. The Central Bankruptcy Court made an absolute receivership order against JKN Global Group Public Company Limited, a listed Thai media business, on 25 August 2026. The Official Receiver’s notice was published in the Royal Gazette on 1 October 2026, and the two-month window for creditors to file runs from that publication.

Anyone holding a claim against that company, including foreign suppliers and licensors, has until approximately 1 December 2026 to file with the Official Receiver, unless a creditor outside Thailand obtains the receiver’s extension of up to two months. Anyone who owes money to the company, or holds its property, has a separate one-month duty to report that to the receiver. The lesson of Dika 5294/2568 is that nobody will chase you, and arriving late with a good excuse is not a strategy.

What Foreign Creditors Should Do Now

1. Identify your Thai counterparties with meaningful outstanding balances and check the Legal Execution Department and Royal Gazette notices periodically, or ask Thai counsel to run that watch for you.
2. The moment you learn of a receivership order, fix the publication date in writing. Every deadline in the process counts from it.
3. File within two months even if your loss is not yet quantified. The Act allows contingent and unliquidated claims, so an estimated claim filed on time beats a precise claim filed late.
4. Gather contracts, invoices, delivery records and correspondence early. The receiver examines claims on documents, and a claim you cannot prove is a claim you lose.
5. If you are already outside the window, move immediately rather than perfecting your figures. The reasonable-time requirement starts running the day your obstacle ends.
6. Where the debt is still alive and no order has been made, ordinary debt collection in Thailand or a negotiated settlement is usually faster and recovers more than a bankruptcy dividend.

Directors on the other side of this should note that closing a company in Thailand correctly, through dissolution and liquidation, avoids most of this machinery, and our guide covers that route together with the court fees involved.

Frequently Asked Questions

About the author. This article was written and reviewed by Sébastien Brousseau, LL.B., B.Sc., who has been based in Thailand since 2004 and has run ThaiLawOnline since 2006. Our team acts for foreign creditors, suppliers and licensors dealing with insolvent Thai counterparties, from proof of claim through to distribution. If a Thai debtor has gone into receivership, or you think one is about to, contact ThaiLawOnline before the two-month window closes.

Disclaimer: this article is general information about Thai law and is not legal advice. Deadlines in insolvency are strict and fact-specific, and the case summary above is based on the published report of the decision. Take advice on your own position before acting. Reviewed on 10 October 2026: Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 sections 26 to 28, 91, 91/1 and 95 read in Thai; the extension for creditors outside Thailand, the ranking of late claims and the position of secured creditors were added. Supreme Court Decision 5294/2568 is not yet in the stores we check against and was not re-read; the account above follows its published report.

The Supreme Court answered that in Supreme Court decision 502/2569, a 2026 ruling from a small claims case in Nakhon Pathom. The insurer paid 751,400 baht against a 600,000 baht limit, then sued its own policyholder and his driver for the 151,400 baht of overpayment. It won, and the limitation period that applied was ten years, not one.

What an Insurance Policy Limit in Thailand Actually Covers

Voluntary motor insurance in Thailand is sold in tiers, and the headline tier, Type 1, covers damage to your own vehicle plus liability to third parties. The liability cover is capped. The cap is usually expressed per occurrence, not per victim, and that distinction is where the trouble in this case began.

Compulsory motor insurance under the Protection for Motor Vehicle Accident Victims Act sits underneath the voluntary policy and pays limited sums for bodily injury. It does not pay for a damaged house or a damaged truck. For property damage you are relying entirely on the voluntary policy, and only up to its limit. If you are still deciding what to buy, our guide on choosing insurance in Thailand sets out the tiers.

Nothing in a policy limit stops a victim from suing you for the rest. The limit binds the insurer, not the injured party. Your liability in tort under section 420 is whatever the court assesses, and the policy simply funds part of it.

Dika 502/2569: One Crash, Two Victims, 151,400 Baht Over the Limit

An employee was driving his employer’s truck in the course of his work on 30 September 2019. He rear-ended another truck, and the impact pushed his vehicle into a roadside house. One moment of inattention, two unrelated victims: the owner of the other truck and the owner of the house.

The employer had insured the truck under a Type 1 policy with third-party property cover of 600,000 baht per occurrence. The insurer paid every claim as it arrived.

The small claims court at Nakhon Pathom dismissed the insurer’s claim. The Court of Appeal for Region 7 reversed and ordered the driver and the employer to repay the 151,400 baht. The Supreme Court agreed with the outcome and changed only the interest rate.

One argument the defendants ran is worth noting because it is the instinctive one. They said the excess should be attributed to one victim’s claim rather than the other’s, so that at least part of the payout stayed inside the cover. The court refused to split it. The damage came from one incident at one moment, so the payments formed a single pool measured against a single per-occurrence limit.

Why the Court Used Management of Affairs, Not Subrogation

An insurer that pays a claim normally steps into the victim’s shoes. That is subrogation, and it carries the victim’s rights and the victim’s deadlines with it. Here the insurer was not standing in anyone’s shoes, because the victims had already been paid in full and had nothing left to assign.

Instead the court applied section 401 of the Civil and Commercial Code, management of affairs without mandate. By paying the victims, the insurer discharged a debt the driver and the employer owed in tort. Nobody asked it to pay the extra 151,400 baht, but the payment produced exactly the result the defendants would have wanted, which is the test section 401 applies. That creates an obligation to reimburse.

The practical consequence is blunt. The insurer did not need a clause in the policy entitling it to claw back an overpayment. The Code supplied the right.

The Limitation Trap: One Year or Ten?

Thai tort claims expire one year after the injured person knows of the wrongful act and the wrongdoer, under section 448 paragraph 1. Had this been a subrogated tort claim, the insurer would have been out of time long before it filed, since the last payment was made in August 2020.

Because the claim arose from management of affairs rather than tort, no specific limitation rule applied. The residual ten-year period in section 193/30 governed instead, running from the point the insurer could first enforce the debt. The suit was comfortably in time. Our note on limitation periods in Thai law explains how these periods interact.

For a policyholder this is the uncomfortable part. The exposure does not quietly disappear after a year. It can sit there for a decade.

What This Means If You Drive in Thailand

Expats tend to assume that comprehensive cover ends the conversation. Dika 502/2569 shows it does not. Three risks are worth naming.

• Per-occurrence caps are shared. One accident with several victims draws on a single limit, and the victims are not ranked.
• An insurer can pay first and recover later. Paying a claim above the limit is not a waiver of the limit.
• Employers carry the driver’s liability. The employer here was liable alongside the employee because the crash happened in the course of employment. Companies that let staff drive should read the limit on the fleet policy as a business risk, not an administrative detail.

If you are preparing to drive here, our guide on buying a car in Thailand covers registration, transfer and the insurance tiers. If a crash has already happened, the first steps matter more than the policy wording, and our page on legal advice after an accident in Thailand sets them out.

How to Check Your Own Cover Before It Is Tested

1. Find the third-party property damage figure on your policy schedule and confirm whether it is per occurrence or per claim.
2. Check whether the figure is realistic against what you actually drive past: a pickup, a shopfront and a parked car in one incident is not an exotic scenario.
3. If the vehicle is company-owned, confirm the policy names the company and covers employees driving on company business.
4. Keep every payment advice the insurer sends you. If it later claims an overpayment, the dates and amounts decide the arithmetic.
5. Ask your insurer in writing what it does when payouts exceed the limit. The answer is now predictable, but you want it on file.

Frequently Asked Questions

About the author. This article was written and reviewed by Sébastien Brousseau, LL.B., B.Sc., who has been based in Thailand since 2004 and has run ThaiLawOnline since 2006. Our team advises expatriates and foreign-owned companies on accident claims, insurance disputes and civil litigation in Thailand. If an insurer has asked you to repay a claim, or a crash has produced more damage than your policy covers, contact ThaiLawOnline for a review of your position.

Disclaimer: this article is general information about Thai law and is not legal advice. Court decisions turn on their own facts, and the summary above is based on the published report of the decision. Speak to a qualified adviser about your own situation before acting. Reviewed on 10 October 2026: Civil and Commercial Code sections 193/30, 401, 420 and 448 read in Thai and consistent with the account above. Supreme Court Decision 502/2569 is not yet in the stores we check against and was not re-read; the summary follows its published report.

This guide maps who each path fits, the main friction, and where to dig deeper on ThaiLawOnline. It is general information, not a legal opinion for your file. Thai rules and practice change; confirm before you commit capital or start work.

Who this comparison is for (and who it is not)

Lead rule: Owning shares or sitting on a board does not by itself authorise work in Thailand. Under the Emergency Decree on Managing the Work of Foreigners B.E. 2560 section 8, a foreigner generally must not work without a work permit (or a statutory exemption such as an approved Smart S activity).

Day-to-day management (signing contracts, directing staff, running operations) is treated as work. Whether purely passive attendance at board meetings requires a permit is fact-specific. Do not treat an informal “board-meeting-only” story as a safe loophole.

This article is for founders and directors who intend to build or run a Thai company and need a lawful stay-and-work combination. It is not aimed at tourists, or at people whose only plan is remote work from Thailand under DTV / LTR-style programmes. Those routes differ from founding and working locally; see our legal guide for digital nomads in Thailand.

Three founder paths at a glance

Deep links for each path: self-sponsoring a work permit through your own company, BOI promotion benefits and application, and setting up a Thai company as a foreigner (FBA / 2026 rules).

Side-by-side comparison

The table below is a decision map, not a guarantee of approval. Cells that turn on officer practice are labelled accordingly.

Path A: Self-sponsoring through your own Thai company (Non-B + WP)

Self-sponsorship means your Thai limited company meets the criteria to employ foreigners, then sponsors you (as director or employee) for a work permit, coordinated with a Non-Immigrant B stay. For mechanics and document checklists, see self-sponsoring a work permit through your own company and what a Thailand work permit is (and is not).

Capital test (~2M / WP) and ceiling of ten + four exceptions

For a standard Thai company sponsoring a foreign work permit, the Department of Employment regulation of B.E. 2547 (clause 5(3)) sets the long-standing capital test of about 2 million baht paid-up registered capital per foreign permit (often 1 million where the applicant has a lawfully registered Thai spouse, for that spouse’s permit only), with a general ceiling of ten foreigners unless one of the four exception tests in the B.E. 2547 criteria is met: corporate income tax paid ≥3M in the prior year; export foreign-exchange ≥30M; tourism ≥5,000 foreign visitors; or ≥100 Thai employees.

Thai staffing expectations (4:1 + SSO seasoning)

Separately, the one-year extension of stay requires the company to employ four Thai employees per foreigner. That ratio is item 2.1(5) of the criteria annexed to Immigration Bureau Order 12/2568 of 23 January 2025, a condition Immigration applies to the extension, not a Department of Employment rule; representative, regional and branch offices of foreign companies are held to one Thai employee per foreigner instead. How long those employees must have been paying social security contributions before you file (often said to be about three months) is office practice, not a written rule, so confirm it with the office handling your file.

Visa linkage (Non-B → WP → annual extension)

In practice, Non-B stay permission and the work permit move together: the permit is employer-, position-, and place-specific, and annual extensions usually require both to stay valid.

One-year Non-B extensions tied to employment commonly require a minimum monthly salary that varies by nationality under Immigration practice (the criteria annexed to Immigration Bureau Order 12/2568 of 23 January 2025; Police Order 327/2557, often still quoted, was repealed in September 2023). Confirm the current band for the applicant’s passport with the filing office before you rely on any published table, including this one.

Real office, VAT, SSO, e-Work Permit workflow

Expect a real office that can survive a spot check, tax ID / VAT compliance where applicable, and SSO registration for staff. The e-Work Permit system for expatriates changes how permits are issued; treat biometric and card timelines as operational and confirm current timelines with the Department of Employment rather than relying on a fixed number of days.

Government WP fees for ordinary occupations remain on the published schedule: 100 baht application plus 750 / 1,500 / 3,000 baht by permit length up to one year (longer permits accrue the same bands; a two-year permit is often 6,000 by that arithmetic).

Main friction: capital, staffing practice, FBA ownership, nominees

Capital and staffing are only half the picture. Under the Foreign Business Act, a Thai-registered company that is 50% or more foreign-owned is itself a “foreigner” (s.4), and List restrictions apply. Thai nominee shareholding to evade the Act is a criminal offence under section 36 (imprisonment and/or fines of 100,000 to 1,000,000 baht, plus court orders to unwind). From 1 August 2026, DBD Order 2/2569 tightens registration evidence for many under-50% foreign structures. The penalty that matters is the one in section 36 of the Foreign Business Act itself: up to three years’ imprisonment, a fine of 100,000 to 1,000,000 baht, or both, and the court orders the arrangement to end.

Path B: BOI-promoted route for founders

BOI promotion is activity-driven. It can unlock tax and non-tax incentives and a different visa/WP channel, but only if your project sits on the live promoted list and you keep complying. See BOI promotion benefits and application.

FBA: ≥50% foreign = foreigner; List 2/3 via s.12; List 1 closed

Under the Foreign Business Act, ≥50% foreign ownership makes the company a “foreigner” (s.4). BOI promotion can open a certificate route under FBA section 12 for List Two or List Three activities, not List One, which remains closed to foreigners. Promotion is not an automatic List rewrite; the certificate follows promotion for qualifying List 2/3 activities.

WP/visa via BOI channel (not ordinary DOE 2M capital test and Immigration 4:1 ratio)

A BOI-promoted company sponsors foreign staff through BOI’s visa/work-permit channel (Single Window / TIESC), not the ordinary DOE capital test and Immigration 4:1 package. BOI still applies its own position-approval and (for larger manufacturing under Por. 8/2568, employment >100 → Thai personnel ≥70%) Thai-employment proportion rules. Published Single Window targets are on the order of several working days per step when documents are complete, not a guaranteed same-day result. BOI promotion therefore does not free a company from Thai staffing requirements.

Tax / land / non-tax incentives

BOI tax incentives are activity-group dependent. Current published basic CIT exemption bands commonly run about 3 to 8 years (with some technology tracks and merit enhancements capable of longer totals, in limited cases up to around 13 years). Always match the exact activity on the live BOI list.

Land: promotion can include a permission to own land for promoted operations where the foreign juristic person maintains paid-up capital of at least 50 million baht and meets BOI’s current office/residence criteria (Ann. 16/2567 / Por. 8/2567, late-2024 framework). Land ownership is not automatic with every promotion certificate.

Minimum investment is often framed from about 1 million baht excluding land and working capital, activity-dependent.

Eligibility, evaluation targets, ongoing compliance

After prep and complete documents, BOI publishes evaluation targets of roughly 40 / 60 / 90 working days by investment size. Promotion brings ongoing reporting and scope limits: benefits attach to the promoted activity, not to every side business you invent later.

Spouse/dependent on the BOI promotion path

A dependent visa issued because a spouse works for a BOI-promoted company does not automatically authorise the dependent to work. The dependent generally needs their own work authorisation. This is not the same as the Smart S spouse privilege described below, and the two tracks work differently.

Path C: Smart S for startup founders (current track only)

February 2025 reform: Smart S + dependents only for new apps

As of the February 2025 BOI Smart Visa reform (Cabinet 13 Jan 2025; BOI Announcement Por. 5/2568 of 18 Feb 2025, which repealed Por. 12/2561), new Smart qualification is focused on startup entrepreneurs (Smart S) and their dependents. Do not rely on legacy Smart Talent / Investor salary or investment figures (e.g. Smart T ≥100k monthly, Smart I 20M/5M) as live gates for new applications.

Current gates

Typical published gates include a certified targeted-industry startup (often framed as established within about two years), at least 25% equity or a director role, a bank deposit of ≥600,000 baht (plus 180,000 per dependent) held for at least three months, and health insurance.

Work without traditional WP; spouse may work

Holders may work in endorsed activities without a separate traditional work permit. Under current Smart rules, a qualifying spouse may be permitted to work without a separate traditional work permit. That privilege belongs to the Smart track, and it does not transfer by analogy to a BOI-promotion dependent visa.

Validity: up to 2 years, renewable

Smart S visa framing under current portal/announcement materials is up to 2 years, renewable, not “up to 4 years” for new applications.

How Smart S differs from Non-B self-sponsor and full BOI promotion

Smart S is immigration/work facilitation for a narrow certified-startup profile. It is not a full BOI tax-holiday substitute, and it does not by itself rewrite FBA ownership rules. Self-sponsor Non-B + WP remains the default when your activity is ordinary SME work outside Smart/BOI eligibility. Full BOI promotion remains the route when you need List 2/3 ownership certificates, land permission potential, or activity-group tax incentives.

How to choose: decision framework for founders

1. Fast market entry vs ownership control vs sector incentives. If you need speed into an ordinary services business, self-sponsor Non-B may be more realistic than waiting on BOI evaluation, provided capital and staffing practice are fundable.
2. “I need 100% foreign ownership.” Look at BOI / treaty / Foreign Business Licence routes described in setting up a Thai company as a foreigner, not nominees. Nominees invite FBA s.36 exposure.
3. “My activity is not BOI-eligible.” Plan a realistic Non-B self-sponsor structure (or another licence route), not a forced BOI story.
4. “I’m building a certified targeted-industry startup.” Evaluate Smart S against BOI promotion and Non-B: deposit/equity gates vs tax holiday vs capital-and-payroll load.
5. Spouse who will work. If the principal is on BOI promotion, budget the spouse’s own WP. If the principal is on Smart S, the spouse privilege may apply under Por. 5/2568; confirm status before they start work.

Common mistakes that sink founder applications

• Treating shareholding or a board seat as a work-permit substitute (Decree s.8).
• Nominee or artificial staffing structures (FBA s.36; Order 2/2569 documentary context).
• Starting work before WP issuance, or outside Smart endorsed scope.
• Assuming a BOI promotion spouse/dependent visa equals work rights (it does not; ≠ Smart spouse privilege).
• Relying on obsolete Smart T/I gates or “up to 4 years” marketing for new Smart applications.
• Confusing DTV remote work with local founder work; see the digital nomads guide.
• Working without (or outside) a permit: foreigner fines under Decree s.101 (5,000 to 50,000 baht) then removal; employers under s.102; a foreigner penalised under s.101 generally faces a two-year bar on a new WP under s.64/1.

Last reviewed: 30 September 2026 (scoped). Checked against the Thai text of the Department of Employment regulation of B.E. 2547 (clause 5(3)), the criteria annexed to Immigration Bureau Order 12/2568 (item 2.1 and the Annex Kor income table), and Foreign Business Act sections 4, 12 and 36; the Emergency Decree penalties were checked in the same day’s review. Updated 1 October 2026: the Smart S figures were read in BOI Announcement Por. 5/2568 of 18 February 2025 (the BOI’s own English translation, from its Smart Visa site): the Cabinet resolution of 13 January 2025, the repeal of Por. 12/2561, the 25 per cent shareholding or directorship test, the 600,000 baht deposit plus 180,000 baht for each dependant held for three months, health insurance, and work without a work permit; the two-year renewable visa and the spouse’s right to work without a work permit are stated on the BOI’s Smart S page. Updated 3 October 2026: the Thai-staff ratio was read in Office of the BOI Announcement Por. 8/2568 of 5 June 2025 (Thai original and the BOI’s English translation, clause 4.2.1: a manufacturing company employing more than 100 people must keep Thai staff at 70 per cent or more) and matches the page. Not read in a primary text: the land permission threshold, the evaluation times and the minimum investment, so confirm those with the BOI. Re-checked on 10 October 2026: six shorthand references that attributed the 4:1 ratio to the Department of Employment were corrected, since the ratio is an Immigration extension criterion (item 2.1(5) of the criteria annexed to Immigration Bureau Order 12/2568) and the Department of Employment regulation sets only the capital test.

FAQ

Does owning a Thai company let me work without a work permit?
No. Ownership and board membership do not by themselves authorise work. Decree s.8 generally requires a work permit or a statutory exemption (such as approved Smart S activity). Passive board-only scenarios are fact-specific; do not rely on informal exceptions.

What capital do I need per foreign WP on a non-BOI company?
About 2 million baht paid-up registered capital per foreign WP; often 1 million if you have a lawfully registered Thai spouse (that permit only); general ceiling 10 unless one of the four DOE Reg. 2547 ข้อ ๕(๓) exceptions applies.

Is the “4 Thais per foreigner” rule statute or practice?
Neither, strictly: the ratio is a written condition of the one-year extension of stay, item 2.1(5) of the criteria annexed to Immigration Bureau Order 12/2568, not a work permit rule. The Department of Employment works on capital instead (2 million baht per foreigner). How long Thai staff must already be on social security is office practice; confirm at filing.

Does BOI skip ordinary DOE capital test and Immigration 4:1 ratio, and does BOI still have its own Thai-staff rules?
Yes to the first in the sense that BOI uses its own visa/WP channel rather than the ordinary DOE 2M capital test and Immigration 4:1 ratio package; no to “BOI has no Thai staff rules”; e.g. Por. 8/2568 manufacturing headcount proportions.

Do Smart S holders still need a traditional work permit?
For endorsed Smart S activities, holders may work without a traditional WP under Por. 5/2568. Outside endorsed scope, do not assume exemption.

Can my spouse work on my BOI path vs on Smart S?
BOI promotion dependent visa ≠ automatic work rights; spouse generally needs own WP. Smart S qualifying spouse may work without a separate traditional WP under Por. 5/2568. Never conflate.

Is BOI the same as Smart Visa?
No. BOI promotion is an investment-promotion certificate with tax/non-tax incentives and a facilitation channel. Smart S is a current Smart Visa track for certified startups (immigration/work facilitation), not a full tax-holiday substitute.

How does e-Work Permit change founder applications?
It changes the process channel for issuance and renewals. Processing times vary, so check the current timeline with the Department of Employment before you plan around a date. See the e-Work Permit guide.

What if my business is pure retail / trading / general services?
Many of those activities sit outside BOI/Smart S eligibility and face FBA List constraints. Plan a realistic Non-B self-sponsor or licence structure, and avoid nominee shortcuts.

What about SME corporate tax?
Ordinary CIT is generally 20%. A reduced SME schedule applies only if both paid-up capital ≤5 million and revenue from sales/services ≤30 million in the same period (plus RD continuity conditions).

Next steps / related guides

If you are choosing among these three paths, a structure review before you deposit capital or hire staff usually costs less than unwinding a nominee or a refused Non-B extension later. You can contact ThaiLawOnline for a founder-path review; no outcome is guaranteed.

Must-read hubs

• Self-sponsoring a work permit through your own company
• BOI promotion benefits and application
• Setting up a Thai company as a foreigner (FBA / 2026 rules)
• What a Thailand work permit is (and is not)
• e-Work Permit system for expatriates
• When DTV / LTR differ from founding a Thai Co

This page describes Thai law as it stood in September 2026. Thai law changes, and how it applies depends on your circumstances. It is general information, not legal advice for your situation.

One option for founders in Thailand is to obtain a Self-Sponsored Work Permit, allowing them to work through their own company.

What still needs an original document or your presence is short and predictable: a Land Office registration (unless you sign a Tor Dor 21 or Or Chor 21 power of attorney), marriage and prenuptial registration at the district office, and some court steps. ThaiLawOnline has worked this way since 2006 and has handled more than 5,000 client matters, almost all of them by email, telephone, video call, LINE and WhatsApp. This page explains how it works, what it costs, and how to sign Thai documents in your own country.

Can you trust a Thai lawyer you have never met?

Trust comes from facts you can check before you send money, not from a handshake. Before you instruct any Thai firm, remote or not, check four things:

1. A licensed Thai lawyer. Under the Lawyers Act B.E. 2528 only Thai nationals can be licensed by the Lawyers Council of Thailand. Ask for the name and licence number of the licensed Thai lawyer who will handle your matter. A foreigner may manage a firm and explain the law, but cannot appear in a Thai court or sign a Thai legal opinion.
2. A registered company. A real firm has a company registration number with the Department of Business Development that it can give you in writing.
3. Published fees. If a firm will not state its fee before a call, you have no benchmark for what follows.
4. A written engagement. The scope and the fee should be agreed in writing before any work starts.

ThaiLawOnline meets all four. Our lawyer of record is Khun Wichuda Atthamethakon, LL.M., Thai Bar Licence No. 3149/2556 and Notarial Services Attorney (registration 576/2566). The firm is ThaiLaw Online Co., Ltd., company registration number 0305557004821. Our fixed fees are on the pricing page, and an engagement letter is signed before work begins.

Hire a Thai lawyer from abroad: what can be done remotely

The table below shows, for our most requested services, what can be done from your home country and what needs an original document or a visit. Fees are the fixed firm fees published on our pricing page on 28 September 2026. Government fees (Land Office, embassy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs legalisation, certified translation) are charged at cost, with the official receipt.

Your first week as a remote client

1. Email us at info@thailawonline.com with a short description of the matter, your country and time zone, and your preferred language (English, Thai or French). WhatsApp on +66 87 225 1340 works too.
2. We reply within 24 hours with the next step: the fixed fee if your matter is a fixed-fee service, or a consultation if it is not.
3. For a fixed-fee service, you can order online and follow the matter in your client portal: upload documents against a checklist, read the draft, approve it and sign.
4. For anything else, we hold a one-hour video consultation (2,000 THB, paid in advance) on Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams or LINE. A written, itemised quote follows within 48 hours, and the consultation fee is credited against the fee if you go ahead.
5. An engagement letter is signed before any work begins. No work starts on a verbal estimate.

First drafts are usually ready three to five business days after payment and complete information for a will, about five working days for a prenuptial agreement, and five to seven for a usufruct agreement. Review, revision and signing follow on your schedule, not ours.

Signing Thai documents outside Thailand

This is where remote clients lose the most time. The rule is simple: the office that receives the document decides what it accepts, and a Thai office wants to be able to verify who signed.

Power of attorney: which form, and how to sign it

A power of attorney lets a representative act for you in Thailand (Civil and Commercial Code, sections 797 onwards). If the act itself must be in writing, the appointment must be in writing too (section 798). A general power does not cover the sale or mortgage of land, a lease of more than three years, a gift, a compromise or a lawsuit: those need express authority (section 801).

Each office also has its own form: the Tor Dor 21 for land and houses, the Or Chor 21 for condominium units, the court’s own appointment form for litigation, and in-house forms at banks and immigration. A generic power of attorney drafted in your home country is usually refused by a Land Office.

If you sign outside Thailand, there are two accepted routes:

• Sign at a Thai embassy or consulate, which certifies your signature.
• Sign before a notary public in your country, complete any foreign-ministry or apostille step your country uses, then have the document legalised by the Thai embassy or consulate.

If you live in the United States, the steps take place at a local notary public and at the Thai embassy or consulate-general that covers your state. We draft the document, explain it line by line on a video call, and send you written signing instructions for your country before you book the appointment.

Legalisation now, apostille from 28 February 2027

Thailand deposited its accession to the Hague Apostille Convention on 30 June 2026. The Convention enters into force for Thailand on 28 February 2027, and then only with member states that did not object by 30 December 2026. Until that date an apostille on its own is not accepted in Thailand. A foreign document still needs legalisation by the Thai embassy or consulate, a certified Thai translation, and legalisation at the Department of Consular Affairs in Bangkok (200 THB per stamp, or 400 THB for same-day service). Allow about a month for the full chain. From 28 February 2027, a document apostilled in a member state that did not object will need only the apostille and a Thai translation.

Originals, scans and couriers

A scan is enough for us to review, draft and advise. It is not enough where the law or the office requires an original: a Land Office power of attorney, a signed will, a notarised document or a court filing. For those, email us a scan first, wait for our confirmation, then send the original by an international courier such as DHL or FedEx and keep the tracking number. Checking the scan first prevents the most common delay: an original that arrives in Bangkok with a blank line or a correction, which a Land Office will refuse. If you prefer, bring the originals on your next trip; we hold the file ready so the remaining step takes one visit.

Paying a Thai law firm from overseas

Fees are in Thai baht. From abroad you can pay through PayPal, by international SWIFT transfer to our Kasikorn Bank account (account name ThaiLaw Online Co., Ltd., SWIFT code KASITHBK), or by Wise, which usually costs less than a bank wire. Fixed-fee services and consultations are paid in advance. Larger matters are invoiced in stages tied to deliverables, with a receipt for every payment. Government fees are passed through at cost, with the official receipt.

Being abroad does not change the fee. Remote work costs us nothing extra, so it costs you nothing extra.

When you do need to be in Thailand

A few steps require you in person, or a representative holding the right power of attorney:

• Marriage registration, and the prenuptial agreement registered with it (section 1466).
• A divorce by mutual consent at the district office, unless you sign at a Thai registry abroad or choose a court divorce with a power of attorney.
• A Land Office transfer or registration, unless you sign a Tor Dor 21 or Or Chor 21.
• A court hearing where the judge requires you personally, for example to testify. Your Thai lawyer attends everything else.
• Some immigration and banking steps, such as a permanent residence interview or opening a Thai bank account.

Everything before and after those steps can be done from home.

Five mistakes foreign clients make

1. Sending a home-country power of attorney to a Land Office. Even apostilled, it is usually refused. Use the Tor Dor 21 or Or Chor 21, and until 28 February 2027 add Thai embassy legalisation.
2. Signing a blank Tor Dor 21 for a broker, developer or partner to complete later. It hands over real control of the property.
3. Asking a beneficiary to witness your will. The gift to that witness, or to the witness’s spouse, is void (section 1653).
4. Paying someone who cannot give you a Thai licence number. Consultants and agents cannot represent you in a Thai court.
5. Posting originals before anyone has checked a scan. One correction on a form costs a second courier and weeks.

Who will handle your file

Your matter is handled by our Thai lawyers under the supervision of Khun Wichuda Atthamethakon, LL.M., licensed Thai lawyer and Notarial Services Attorney, with the firm since 2013. Documents for Thai courts and government offices are prepared in Thai; you receive bilingual versions where the service includes them.

Sébastien Brousseau, LL.B., the Managing Director, was trained in both civil law and common law at the Université de Montréal and has lived in Thailand since 2004. As a foreign national he does not practise Thai law: he manages the firm and explains Thai outcomes, in English or French, to clients who grew up with common law assumptions. That translation between legal cultures is often what a foreign client needs most. Thailand is a civil law country: a contract is read against the Civil and Commercial Code rather than a body of precedent, and many things settled by a lawyer’s letter at home are settled here by a registration at a government office. Meet the team.

Frequently asked questions

Start your matter from home

Email info@thailawonline.com, or call or WhatsApp +66 87 225 1340 (English and French) or +66 87 414 9288 (Thai and English). LINE: @852pntmy. Tell us your situation, your country and time zone, and your preferred language. If you already know what you need, order a fixed-fee service online; if not, book a consultation.

Last reviewed: 28 September 2026. Fees checked against the firm’s fee source on that date. Civil and Commercial Code sections 797, 798, 801, 1466, 1653 and 1656; apostille dates checked against the Hague Conference announcement of Thailand’s accession. Land Office, district office and embassy practice varies by office and country and is confirmed for each matter.

It lost again, and this time it lost on procedure. For anyone litigating in Thailand (a landlord, a condo buyer, an employee, an insured driver), the lesson is that you get one shot at a dispute. Everything you want from it has to be in the first case.

Suing Twice in Thailand: The Rule in Plain English

Thai civil procedure contains a family of rules designed to stop the same fight being run twice. The central one for this case is section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, which prohibits further proceedings on a case or an issue that a court has already decided. Its text speaks of the court that gave the decision, but the Supreme Court applies it to a fresh lawsuit between the same parties that would require the same issue to be decided again, as it did in this case. Once a court has ruled, that ruling is the answer; a party cannot ask for a second one.

The rationale is not merely administrative tidiness. A party who could keep re-filing would be able to grind an opponent down through repetition, and a losing party could shop for a friendlier bench. So the rule cuts both ways: it protects the winner from harassment and it protects the loser from an endless series of follow-up claims.

Where expats get caught is the assumption that a new legal label makes a new case. It does not. The court looks at the substance (the same parties, the same transaction, the same underlying obligation) and not at how the claim has been renamed. Our overview of the Thai legal system explains the wider procedural picture.

Dika 833/2569: The Insurer Who Came Back for the Deductible

The dispute began with a motor insurance policy. On 8 March 2557 the insured vehicle hit a tree, caught fire and was a total loss. The insured claimed 16,200,000 baht in benefits. The insurer refused to pay.

The insured sued in the South Bangkok Civil Court. The insurer defended on the ground that the policy was voidable. The court awarded the full 16,200,000 baht plus interest, the Court of Appeal affirmed, the Supreme Court affirmed again in Dika 911/2563, and the insurer paid the judgment.

Then the insurer filed a fresh case against the insured, this time seeking 100,000 baht, the deductible under the same policy, which the policy said the insured had to reimburse within seven days of written demand once the insurer had covered it. Technically it was a different sum of money and a different clause. Substantively it was the same policy, the same accident and the same parties.

The trial court dismissed the second case, the Court of Appeal Region 1 (Consumer Division) affirmed, and the Supreme Court’s Consumer Division upheld the dismissal as prohibited duplicate proceedings. The insurer had argued that its claim to the deductible did not even exist until it had paid under the first judgment, and that it could not have pleaded it in the first case while arguing that the policy was voidable. The Court was not persuaded: the new claim arose from the same breach of the same policy, so the issue it raised was contained in the issue already decided, namely whether the insurer had to pay under that policy. Reframing the claim as recovery of a deductible did not change that.

Three Different Bars on a Second Case

Thai law uses three separate provisions, and they are easy to confuse. Knowing which one applies tells you whether your second case is dead, merely premature, or fine.

Dika 833/2569 turned on section 144 paragraph 1. The first case was over and paid; what the insurer was trying to do was have a court decide, a second time, what this policy required of whom. That is squarely what section 144 forbids.

What is not barred

A genuinely different cause of action between the same parties is not caught. A second accident under the same policy, a later breach of a continuing contract, a new period of unpaid rent: all of these can be sued on separately, because the facts giving rise to them are new. The test is whether the issue the court would have to decide is one it has already decided, not whether the parties are the same.

Consumer Cases Get No Exemption

This was a consumer case, heard throughout in the consumer divisions, and the special procedure made no difference. Section 7 of the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 applies the Civil Procedure Code to consumer cases so far as that Act does not provide otherwise, and it does not provide otherwise on duplicate proceedings.

Consumer procedure in Thailand is genuinely friendlier in other respects: a consumer who sues is exempt from court fees (section 18, though the court can order them paid for an unreasonable claim), the court can call evidence on its own initiative (section 33), and on matters such as how a product was made or designed the burden of proof falls on the business (section 29). None of that is a licence to run the same dispute twice. Expats who bring consumer claims about vehicles, condominium units, insurance or financial products should assume every ordinary procedural bar applies unless a specific provision lifts it.

The Mistake Expats Make: Splitting One Dispute

The recurring pattern in our own files is a client who wins something and then realises they forgot to claim something else. A tenant recovers the deposit and then wants the moving costs. A condo buyer gets the price back and then wants the interest and the lost rental income. An employee wins severance and then wants the unpaid bonus.

Sometimes those are separate causes of action and a second case is competent. Often they are not: they are heads of loss flowing from the one breach the court has already ruled on, and a second case will be struck out. The difference is not obvious from the outside, which is exactly why it has to be thought about before the first claim is filed rather than after it succeeds.

• Plead every head of loss. Damages, interest, costs, consequential loss: all of it, in the first statement of claim.
• Plead in the alternative. If you are unsure whether the right claim is breach of contract or unjust enrichment, plead both rather than saving one.
• Do not hold something back as leverage. A claim you withhold for negotiation may be a claim you have lost.
• Amend rather than re-file. Section 180 lets you amend, but generally only before the issues are settled or, where there is no settlement of issues, at least seven days before witnesses are heard. Once judgment is final you cannot.
• Watch the reverse direction too. As Dika 833/2569 shows, a defendant who later becomes a claimant is caught by the same rule.

How to Keep Your Second Case Alive

If you are already past the first judgment and want to bring a further claim, the analysis is narrow but not hopeless. Work through it with a lawyer before filing, because a struck-out case still costs you time and fees and can damage your position in any related matter.

1. Identify the issue actually decided. Read the judgment, not your memory of it. Section 144 bites on issues the court determined.
2. Ask whether your new claim needs that issue re-decided. If the court would have to revisit what the contract required, expect dismissal.
3. Look for genuinely new facts. A later breach, a new event, a different period. New facts can support a new case; a new argument about old facts cannot.
4. Check whether enforcement is the real answer. If the judgment already covers what you want but you have not been paid, the route is execution, not a fresh suit.
5. Consider a counterclaim next time. Where you are the defendant and have your own claim on the same transaction, raise it in the answer, provided it is connected to the plaintiff’s claim.

Decision 833/2569 is indexed on the community database deka.in.th and, when the official service is reachable, in the Supreme Court’s own Deka database. For an orientation to what litigation in Thailand actually involves, see what to know before you go to court in Thailand, and our page on Supreme Court appeal processes covers how appeals work.

Last reviewed: 30 September 2026. Checked against the full Thai text of Dika 833/2569 read to the disposition, and against the Thai text of Civil Procedure Code sections 144, 148, 173 and 180 and Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 sections 7, 18, 29 and 33. Corrected: the Supreme Court upheld a dismissal ordered by the lower courts rather than dismissing the case itself; added the insurer’s rejected argument, the first-case history (Dika 911/2563), the consumer-only scope of the fee exemption and the section 180 amendment deadline. The general examples of split claims are illustrations, not decided cases.

Frequently Asked Questions

About the author. This article was written and reviewed by Sébastien Brousseau, LL.B., B.Sc. Sebastien has been based in Thailand since 2004 and has run ThaiLawOnline since 2006, advising expats on Thai litigation, property and contract disputes. If you are weighing up a second claim, or deciding what to put in a first one, contact ThaiLawOnline before you file.

Disclaimer: this article is general information about Thai law and is not legal advice. Whether a particular second claim is barred depends on the precise issues decided in the first case. Please consult a qualified professional about your own situation before acting.