Section 167 — Court's duty to order costs in the judgment
Statutory text (Thai original)
คำสั่งในเรื่องค่าฤชาธรรมเนียมนั้น ไม่ว่าคู่ความทั้งปวงหรือแต่ฝ่ายใดฝ่ายหนึ่ง จักมีคำขอหรือไม่ก็ดี ให้ศาลสั่งลงไว้ในคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งชี้ขาดหรือในคำสั่งจำหน่ายคดีออกจากสารบบความแล้วแต่กรณี แต่ถ้าเพื่อชี้ขาดตัดสินคดีใด ศาลได้มีคำสั่งอย่างใดในระหว่างการพิจารณา ศาลจะมีคำสั่งเรื่องค่าฤชาธรรมเนียมสำหรับกระบวนพิจารณาที่เสร็จไปในคำสั่งฉบับนั้น หรือในคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งชี้ขาดคดีก็ได้แล้วแต่จะเลือกในกรณีที่มีข้อพิพาทในเรื่องที่ไม่เป็นประเด็นในคดี ให้ศาลมีคำสั่งในเรื่องค่าฤชาธรรมเนียมสำหรับข้อพิพาทเช่นว่านี้ในคำสั่งชี้ขาดข้อพิพาทนั้นในกรณีที่มีการพิจารณาใหม่ ให้ศาลมีอำนาจที่จะสั่งเรื่องค่าฤชาธรรมเนียมสำหรับการพิจารณาครั้งแรก และการพิจารณาใหม่ในคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งได้
English translation
An order as to court costs, whether or not all the parties or any one of them have applied for it, shall be made by the court in the judgment, or in the order deciding the case, or in the order striking the case off the cause list, as the case may be. However, if in order to decide a case the court has made any order during the proceedings, the court may make an order as to the court costs for the completed proceeding either in that order, or in the judgment or order deciding the case, as it chooses. In the case of a dispute on a matter that is not an issue in the case, the court shall make an order as to the court costs for such dispute in the order deciding that dispute. In the case of a new trial, the court shall have power to make an order as to the court costs for the first trial and for the new trial in the judgment or order.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 167 makes the disposition of court costs a mandatory part of every final decision: the court must rule on costs in the judgment, in the order deciding the case, or in the order striking it off, even where no party has applied. It then addresses timing, letting the court fix costs for a completed step either in an interim order or in the final judgment, and it deals with costs on a side dispute that is not an issue in the case and with costs on a new trial. Because the duty is mandatory and touches public order, an appellate court can correct a lower court that omitted a costs order even without any party raising it.
Why this matters in practice
In practice a judgment that says nothing about costs is defective, and courts will correct the omission, so do not assume silence means each side pays its own. Costs are decided even without a request, which is why every judgment should be read to the end for the costs order. If you are unsure how a costs ruling affects you, our guide on going to court in Thailand explains what to expect from a Thai judgment.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 928/2568 (2025)
A trial court that fails to make any order as to court costs acts contrary to Section 167, and the Supreme Court may correct the omission by ruling on the costs itself.
In reversing the appellate court, the Supreme Court noted that the trial court had made no order as to court costs, which is not in accordance with Section 167. It corrected the defect by ordering the court costs of all three courts to lie where they fell.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4687/2566 (2023)
In a civil case connected to a criminal case, it is the court's duty under Section 167, applied through Section 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to make an order as to court costs in the judgment; an appellate court that omits such an order in the civil part acts unlawfully.
The court held that ruling on court costs in the civil part of a case connected to a criminal case is a mandatory duty under Section 167 read with Section 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Because the point concerns public order, the Supreme Court corrected the appellate court's failure to order costs on the civil part even without a party raising it.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5063/2565 (2022)
Litigation-expense costs are a type of court cost that the law requires the court to order whether or not a party has applied, under Section 167 read with Section 149 paragraph one and Table 7; the amount is within the court's discretion and is not automatically left to lie where it falls just because the opposing party made no request.
The court held that litigation-expense costs are a court cost the court must order under Section 167 with Section 149 paragraph one and Table 7, whether or not requested, with the amount left to the court's discretion. It was therefore proper for the trial court to order the petitioner to pay such costs even though the opposing party had made no application.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Does the court have to decide court costs even if nobody asks?
Yes. Section 167 requires the court to make an order as to court costs in its judgment or disposing order whether or not any party has applied for it.
What happens if a judgment leaves out the costs order?
A judgment that omits the costs order is not in accordance with Section 167, and a higher court may correct it, because ruling on costs is a mandatory duty.