Foreigners in Thai Courts: Supreme Court Decisions

รีวิวโดย วิชุฑา อัตตะมัธคอน, LL.M., ใบอนุญาตประกอบวิชาชีพทนายความ 3149/2556 จาก ThaiLawOnline ซึ่งเป็นบริษัทกฎหมายในประเทศไทยที่ให้บริการด้านกฎหมายแก่ชาวต่างชาติมาตั้งแต่ปี 2006.

ปรับปรุงล่าสุดเมื่อ 7 พฤศจิกายน 2569

These are the Thai Supreme Court decisions in our library where a foreigner was a party, or where being a foreigner decided the outcome. Each entry links to a page with the facts, the holding, the court’s own words in Thai and the full Thai judgment, taken from the Supreme Court’s published record.

Read them as what the court actually decided on those facts. A decision binds the parties to it; lower courts follow the Supreme Court’s reasoning in practice, but the next case turns on its own facts and evidence. For the full collection, see Thai Supreme Court decisions in English.

การแต่งงาน การหย่าร้าง และลูก

• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 3740/2525: A registrar cannot refuse a marriage because the foreign partner lacks immigration papers. A foreign partner's immigration paperwork is not itself a condition of marriage that allows a registrar to refuse.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 580/2527: Only the statutory conditions of marriage allow a registrar to refuse registration. It follows 3740/2525 and fixes the conditions of marriage as an exhaustive statutory list.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 4152/2532: A registrar waiting for an embassy certificate of single status has not refused. The district office is entitled to evidence from a foreigner's embassy that he or she is free to marry.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 218/2562: A foreign couple's marriage abroad can be void in Thailand if one spouse was still married. A foreign couple's marriage abroad can be held void in a Thai court, with the Thai property consequences of a void marriage.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 1179/2561: Land bought with a foreigner's money in a void marriage must be disposed of under the Land Code. A marriage registered abroad and never dissolved bars a later Thai registration.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 5887/2533: A divorce by consent between foreigners is valid if both national laws allow it. The leading authority for foreign or mixed couples married abroad who agree to divorce in Thailand.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 1869/2566: No Thai Divorce From a Foreign Spouse Unless Their National Law Is Proved to Allow Divorce.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 8455/2559: Marital property cannot be divided while the marriage subsists. A spouse cannot obtain division of marital property while the marriage subsists, and a foreign divorce obtained behind the other spouse's back may not be recognised.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 6499/2557: Spousal maintenance lasts until the marriage ends, not until the wife remarries. Foreign spouses can litigate divorce and maintenance in Thailand, and spousal maintenance during marriage is tied to the marriage itself.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 8151/2560: At-Fault Spouse Cannot Claim Alimony but May Get Maintenance Until the Divorce Is Final.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 13964/2558: A foreign husband's pre-marriage money stays his in land, but buildings are shared. Shows a foreign spouse can trace pre-marriage money into land, but buildings added during the marriage become shared.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 14040/2557: Property bought in the Thai spouse's name during marriage is still marital property. Registration in the Thai spouse's name does not stop property bought during the marriage from being marital, and a foreign spouse's share of land is realised by a forced sale.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 1523/2565: Unmarried Partner Takes Half by Co-ownership, and the Loan Was a Sham.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 6981/2547: A father of a child born outside marriage has no parental power without legitimation. A settlement in which the mother acknowledges paternity does not, by itself, make the father a legal parent.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 7074/2558: A father must support and educate children born by assisted reproduction until majority. A foreign father cannot escape support by invoking his home law, but a Thai court will not order school fees beyond majority without an agreement.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 2668/2556: A Thai court may give one parent sole parental power after a foreign divorce silent on custody. Foreign couples living in Thailand can obtain a Thai order on parental power even when their foreign divorce decree said nothing about the child.

Land, condominiums and nominees

• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 599/2500: Oral side arrangements around a registered land sale to a foreigner bind no one. Oral side arrangements around a registered land sale to a foreigner bind no one.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 2690/2538: Nominee Land for a Foreigner: Not Wholly Void, but a Good-Faith Buyer Takes Priority.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 17923/2557: Lease That Was Really a Sale: Foreign Buyers Cannot Compel Transfer to a Nominee Company.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 5016/2555: An alien's possession of land is not void, but the court would not declare his estate owner. Possession by a foreigner can count, but a court will not hand land to a foreigner through section 1382.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 7500/2552: A foreigner cannot use adverse possession to avoid condominium ownership conditions. Foreigners cannot acquire a condominium unit by possession to bypass the foreign ownership rules.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 8637/2550: Adverse possession cannot apply to land the claimant was already entitled to hold. A beneficiary of a nominee holding cannot use adverse possession to recover the land from the nominee; another remedy is needed.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 5570/2533: Unregistered adverse possession cannot defeat a good faith mortgagee who registered. Family members who rely on a nominee's name on the title, and even on long possession, lose to a lender who registers in good faith.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 2811/2565: A claimed nominee cannot also claim adverse possession of the same condominium unit. A claimant cannot plead nominee ownership and adverse possession in the alternative without pleading it properly; the registered owner is presumed to own.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 3857/2565: A foreigner who paid for land in a Thai partner's name has standing to sue. A foreigner who paid for land held in a Thai partner's name can sue to protect it, but the court will order the land sold.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 840/2561: A foreign company's condominium purchase outside the statutory categories is void. A foreign company buying a condominium must fit one of the statutory categories, otherwise the purchase and even an arbitral refund award may be unenforceable.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 5457/2560: Sham Loan Hiding a Business Bought Through Thai Nominee Shareholders: Void, and the Money Irrecoverable.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 1180/2563: Land bought unlawfully by a foreigner in a son's name stays in the estate. It shows what happens to Thai land a foreigner holds through a nominee: it is estate property, but the heirs inherit the obligation to sell it, not the land itself.

Inheritance and estates

• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 72/2542: Siblings do not inherit when the deceased left a descendant, so a widow may administer alone. A foreign-born spouse is a statutory heir like any other, and siblings drop out entirely when there are children.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 9189/2547: An unregistered partner can be appointed co-administrator of the estate. An unregistered partner, Thai or foreign, can ask to be appointed administrator because of her or his own share in jointly acquired property.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 1357/2534: An heir applying to be administrator must prove he is fit for the role. Fitness is part of the application: the court can refuse an heir whose conduct makes him unsuitable.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 8222/2540: A holographic will must carry a date and an undated will is void. It shows the date is an essential element and that the original document must be produced.

Foreign companies, agents and suing in Thailand

• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 2359/2561: A power of attorney to sign company documents does not authorise suing. Foreign companies litigating in Thailand must expressly authorise their representative to bring proceedings.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 2288/2536: A general power of attorney lets an agent assign a claim under section 801. Only the six listed acts need specific authority; other dispositions may be done under a general power.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 1274/2501: A sub-agent can sue in Thailand if the authority expressly covers litigation. Foreign rights holders can sue in Thailand through a sub-agent if the chain of authority expressly includes litigation.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 4580/2542: A foreign carrier can be sued where its local agent in Thailand is based. A foreign company that does business in Thailand through a local agent can be sued in Thailand at the agent's domicile.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 178/2551: A foreign defendant with no assets in Thailand can have debts owed to it frozen. A foreign defendant with nothing in Thailand can have money owed to it by Thai parties frozen before judgment.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 2252/2560: Foreign Company Trading Land Loses the Right to Prosecute Its Own Directors.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 7770/2547: A sub-licence from an unregistered licensee is void and the payment cannot be recovered. A party who ignores a registration requirement it knew about may be unable to recover what it paid.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 6025/2561: A payment to police to avoid prosecution of workers cannot be deducted from the price. Informal payments to officials to settle immigration or work permit problems cannot be recovered or set off under a contract.

Criminal cases

• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 2744/2562: A foreign buyer defrauded by a would-be nominee can be a criminal complainant. Money a foreigner entrusts to a Thai nominee or agent for a purchase is protected by section 352, and the nominee structure does not cost him standing.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 4096/2557: A caretaker holding keys and paying utilities commits theft, not misappropriation. Whether a nominee or caretaker commits misappropriation or theft depends on whether possession was handed over, and theft is not compoundable.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 1496/2567: Each separate deception in a visa or nationality scam is a separate fraud count. Visa and nationality scams aimed at foreigners are fraud, and each separate deception is punished separately.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 18538/2555: A police interpreter's translation of foreign witnesses can support a conviction. Evidence from foreign witnesses through a police interpreter can support an assault conviction.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 7491/2562: Assaulting foreign workers is punished as separate counts beside trafficking. Assault of foreign workers is punished as separate counts alongside trafficking and detention offences.
• คำพิพากษาศาลฎีกาที่ 976/2567: Broadcasting remarks online is defamation by publication even without naming the target. Online programmes are publication, the target need not be named, and the court can order the judgment published online.

How to read these decisions

Each decision page lists the code sections the court applied, and each section page lists the decisions on it, so you can move from a rule to the cases and back. Start from the ประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์, ประมวลกฎหมายอาญา หรือ ประมวลกฎหมายวิธีพิจารณาความแพ่ง.

If your own matter looks like one of these cases, the facts that mattered to the court are the ones to gather first: who paid, whose name is on the title, where and how the marriage was registered, and what was put in writing. You can จองคิวปรึกษา to go through them.

คำถามที่พบบ่อย