Freezing Assets Before Judgment in Thai Litigation
3 Views
What the Court Can Order
In cases other than petty claims, a claimant may file an ex parte application, either together with the plaint or at any time before judgment, asking the court to order protective measures.
Four categories are available.
The first is seizure or attachment of the disputed property or of the defendant's property, wholly or in part, before judgment, including money or property held by third parties that is due to the defendant. This reaches bank accounts and debts owed to the defendant.
The second is a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from repeating or continuing the tort, breach of contract, or act complained of, or any other order to relieve the injury the claimant may continue to suffer, including an order prohibiting the defendant from transferring, selling, moving, or disposing of the disputed property or the defendant's property, or an order to stop or prevent waste or deterioration of that property, until the case is final or the court orders otherwise.
The third is an order directing a registrar, competent official, or other person with legal authority to suspend registration, amendment of registration, or cancellation of registration relating to the disputed property or the defendant's property, or relating to the act complained of, until the case is final or the court orders otherwise, so far as this does not conflict with other applicable law. In practice this is the measure used to freeze dealings at the Land Office.
The fourth, used rarely, is the arrest and detention of the defendant.
What Must Be Proved
The court must be satisfied that the claim has merit and that there are sufficient grounds for the measure sought. Each category then carries its own specific test.
For seizure or attachment, the court must be satisfied either that the defendant intends to move the disputed property or their own property, wholly or in part, beyond the court's jurisdiction, or to transfer, sell, or dispose of it in order to delay or obstruct enforcement of any order that may be made against them, or to put the claimant at a disadvantage; or that there is some other necessary ground that the court considers just and appropriate.
For an injunction, the court must be satisfied that the defendant intends to repeat or continue the tort, breach, or act complained of; that the claimant will continue to suffer injury from the defendant's conduct; that there are circumstances indicating the property will be wasted, damaged, or transferred to others; or that the seizure grounds above apply.
For suspension of registration, the court must be satisfied that there is reason to fear the defendant will procure registration, amendment, or cancellation relating to the property or the act complained of, in a way that will cause the claimant damage, or that the general necessity ground applies.
For arrest and detention, the court must be satisfied that, in order to delay or obstruct the proceedings or enforcement, or to disadvantage the claimant, the defendant is hiding to avoid service, has moved or concealed evidence or property beyond the court's reach or is feared to be about to dispose of or destroy it, or that their conduct or the manner of running their business shows they will flee or are likely to flee the jurisdiction.
Where Applications Fail
Two failure patterns recur in the case law, and both are avoidable.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 920/2524 (1981): An insurer sued in tort and applied to seize the defendant's assets before judgment. The Supreme Court held that an applicant under the seizure provision must prove, to the court's satisfaction, that the defendant intends to transfer, sell, or dispose of their property or move it beyond the court's reach. The claimant had proved only that the defendant had more liabilities than assets, with no evidence of any intention to dispose of property. The application failed.
That distinction is the single most important point in this area. Insolvency is not the test. Intention to defeat enforcement is.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 3730/2552 (2009): A buyer sued over a land sale, alleging the sellers had contracted with him and then sold and transferred the land to a third party, and asked the court to cancel that later contract. He applied for an order prohibiting dealings with the land and attaching it before judgment. The Supreme Court held that the purpose of interim protection is to enable enforcement if the claimant wins, so what is sought must correspond to the act complained of, fall within the issues in the case, and be within the relief claimed in the plaint. Because the plaint contained no claim requiring the sellers to transfer the land to the claimant, the application fell outside the issues and the prayer for relief, and there was no sufficient ground for the measure.
The lesson is that interim relief must be drafted alongside the prayer for relief, not as an afterthought. If you want the asset frozen, the plaint must ask for something the freeze would secure.
A third point concerns characterisation. Where a claimant asks for an order described as an attachment but in substance seeks to prohibit the defendant from transferring the property, the court may treat the application under the correct provision rather than refusing it on the label. In one case, where the defendants had transferred disputed land among themselves during proceedings and one was offering it for sale, that conduct was held sufficient to show an intention to dispose of the property in order to obstruct enforcement.
Urgent Applications
The rules also provide for cases of emergency, allowing an application to be dealt with urgently where delay would defeat its purpose. Because these applications are heard without the other side present and on limited material, the evidence filed in support carries unusual weight, and applications built on assertion rather than documents are the ones that fail.
The Risk to the Applicant
Interim relief is not free of consequences for the party who obtains it.
Where the court has granted a measure, the defendant subjected to it may apply to the court of first instance, within thirty days from the date of judgment of the court that made the order, for an order that the claimant compensate them.
Compensation may be ordered in two situations: where the claimant loses the case and it appears the court granted the order under a mistaken view that the claim had merit, through the applicant's fault or negligence; or, whether the claimant wins or loses, where it appears the court granted the order under a mistaken view that the measure was sufficiently justified, through the applicant's fault or negligence.
The court may hear this as a separate proceeding, and if it finds the application well founded, it orders compensation in an amount it considers appropriate. If the claimant does not comply, the court may enforce against them as though they were a judgment debtor, although where compensation is ordered on the first ground, enforcement is suspended until there is a final judgment against the claimant.
This is why interim applications should be supported by evidence rather than suspicion. An aggressive application that later appears to have been made carelessly can turn into a liability.
Interim Relief and Arbitration
Parties who have agreed to arbitrate are not excluded from these protections. A party to an arbitration agreement may apply to a competent court for interim measures before or during arbitral proceedings, subject to the requirement that arbitration be commenced within the period the court sets, failing which the order lapses.
Practical Advice
Gather evidence of the defendant's conduct, not merely of their financial weakness, since it is the intention to defeat enforcement that the court examines. Identify assets early, including land, bank accounts, and debts owed to the defendant by third parties. Draft the prayer for relief so that the measure sought secures something actually claimed. File supporting documents rather than assertions, because these applications are decided on paper and often without the other side present. And weigh the downside, since a measure obtained carelessly can result in a compensation order against you.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I freeze my opponent's bank account before winning the case?
Potentially. Seizure or attachment before judgment can reach money held by third parties that is due to the defendant, but you must satisfy the court that the claim has merit and that the defendant intends to move or dispose of assets to defeat enforcement.
Is it enough that the defendant is insolvent?
No. Proving that liabilities exceed assets, without evidence of an intention to dispose of property or move it beyond the court's reach, has been held insufficient.
Can I stop a land transfer at the Land Office?
Yes, in principle. The court may order the registrar to suspend registration, amendment, or cancellation relating to the disputed property or the defendant's property, where there is reason to fear such dealings will cause you damage.
What happens if my application turns out to have been unjustified?
The defendant may apply within thirty days of the judgment for compensation, and the court may order you to pay and enforce against you as a judgment debtor.
Can I apply if our contract says disputes go to arbitration?
Yes. A court may grant interim measures before or during arbitration, but the order lapses if arbitration is not commenced within the period set.
Speak to a Thai Litigation Lawyer
Interim measures decide whether a judgment is worth anything, and they are won on evidence assembled before the other side realises what is coming. Our bilingual litigators advise on asset tracing, prepare and argue applications for attachment, injunctions, and suspension of registration, and defend clients against measures obtained without proper grounds. Contact us as soon as you suspect assets are being moved.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice. Interim measures are discretionary and depend on the evidence and the facts of each case. Please consult a licensed Thai attorney before applying.
In cases other than petty claims, a claimant may file an ex parte application, either together with the plaint or at any time before judgment, asking the court to order protective measures.
Four categories are available.
The first is seizure or attachment of the disputed property or of the defendant's property, wholly or in part, before judgment, including money or property held by third parties that is due to the defendant. This reaches bank accounts and debts owed to the defendant.
The second is a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from repeating or continuing the tort, breach of contract, or act complained of, or any other order to relieve the injury the claimant may continue to suffer, including an order prohibiting the defendant from transferring, selling, moving, or disposing of the disputed property or the defendant's property, or an order to stop or prevent waste or deterioration of that property, until the case is final or the court orders otherwise.
The third is an order directing a registrar, competent official, or other person with legal authority to suspend registration, amendment of registration, or cancellation of registration relating to the disputed property or the defendant's property, or relating to the act complained of, until the case is final or the court orders otherwise, so far as this does not conflict with other applicable law. In practice this is the measure used to freeze dealings at the Land Office.
The fourth, used rarely, is the arrest and detention of the defendant.
What Must Be Proved
The court must be satisfied that the claim has merit and that there are sufficient grounds for the measure sought. Each category then carries its own specific test.
For seizure or attachment, the court must be satisfied either that the defendant intends to move the disputed property or their own property, wholly or in part, beyond the court's jurisdiction, or to transfer, sell, or dispose of it in order to delay or obstruct enforcement of any order that may be made against them, or to put the claimant at a disadvantage; or that there is some other necessary ground that the court considers just and appropriate.
For an injunction, the court must be satisfied that the defendant intends to repeat or continue the tort, breach, or act complained of; that the claimant will continue to suffer injury from the defendant's conduct; that there are circumstances indicating the property will be wasted, damaged, or transferred to others; or that the seizure grounds above apply.
For suspension of registration, the court must be satisfied that there is reason to fear the defendant will procure registration, amendment, or cancellation relating to the property or the act complained of, in a way that will cause the claimant damage, or that the general necessity ground applies.
For arrest and detention, the court must be satisfied that, in order to delay or obstruct the proceedings or enforcement, or to disadvantage the claimant, the defendant is hiding to avoid service, has moved or concealed evidence or property beyond the court's reach or is feared to be about to dispose of or destroy it, or that their conduct or the manner of running their business shows they will flee or are likely to flee the jurisdiction.
Where Applications Fail
Two failure patterns recur in the case law, and both are avoidable.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 920/2524 (1981): An insurer sued in tort and applied to seize the defendant's assets before judgment. The Supreme Court held that an applicant under the seizure provision must prove, to the court's satisfaction, that the defendant intends to transfer, sell, or dispose of their property or move it beyond the court's reach. The claimant had proved only that the defendant had more liabilities than assets, with no evidence of any intention to dispose of property. The application failed.
That distinction is the single most important point in this area. Insolvency is not the test. Intention to defeat enforcement is.
Case in point — Supreme Court Judgment No. 3730/2552 (2009): A buyer sued over a land sale, alleging the sellers had contracted with him and then sold and transferred the land to a third party, and asked the court to cancel that later contract. He applied for an order prohibiting dealings with the land and attaching it before judgment. The Supreme Court held that the purpose of interim protection is to enable enforcement if the claimant wins, so what is sought must correspond to the act complained of, fall within the issues in the case, and be within the relief claimed in the plaint. Because the plaint contained no claim requiring the sellers to transfer the land to the claimant, the application fell outside the issues and the prayer for relief, and there was no sufficient ground for the measure.
The lesson is that interim relief must be drafted alongside the prayer for relief, not as an afterthought. If you want the asset frozen, the plaint must ask for something the freeze would secure.
A third point concerns characterisation. Where a claimant asks for an order described as an attachment but in substance seeks to prohibit the defendant from transferring the property, the court may treat the application under the correct provision rather than refusing it on the label. In one case, where the defendants had transferred disputed land among themselves during proceedings and one was offering it for sale, that conduct was held sufficient to show an intention to dispose of the property in order to obstruct enforcement.
Urgent Applications
The rules also provide for cases of emergency, allowing an application to be dealt with urgently where delay would defeat its purpose. Because these applications are heard without the other side present and on limited material, the evidence filed in support carries unusual weight, and applications built on assertion rather than documents are the ones that fail.
The Risk to the Applicant
Interim relief is not free of consequences for the party who obtains it.
Where the court has granted a measure, the defendant subjected to it may apply to the court of first instance, within thirty days from the date of judgment of the court that made the order, for an order that the claimant compensate them.
Compensation may be ordered in two situations: where the claimant loses the case and it appears the court granted the order under a mistaken view that the claim had merit, through the applicant's fault or negligence; or, whether the claimant wins or loses, where it appears the court granted the order under a mistaken view that the measure was sufficiently justified, through the applicant's fault or negligence.
The court may hear this as a separate proceeding, and if it finds the application well founded, it orders compensation in an amount it considers appropriate. If the claimant does not comply, the court may enforce against them as though they were a judgment debtor, although where compensation is ordered on the first ground, enforcement is suspended until there is a final judgment against the claimant.
This is why interim applications should be supported by evidence rather than suspicion. An aggressive application that later appears to have been made carelessly can turn into a liability.
Interim Relief and Arbitration
Parties who have agreed to arbitrate are not excluded from these protections. A party to an arbitration agreement may apply to a competent court for interim measures before or during arbitral proceedings, subject to the requirement that arbitration be commenced within the period the court sets, failing which the order lapses.
Practical Advice
Gather evidence of the defendant's conduct, not merely of their financial weakness, since it is the intention to defeat enforcement that the court examines. Identify assets early, including land, bank accounts, and debts owed to the defendant by third parties. Draft the prayer for relief so that the measure sought secures something actually claimed. File supporting documents rather than assertions, because these applications are decided on paper and often without the other side present. And weigh the downside, since a measure obtained carelessly can result in a compensation order against you.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I freeze my opponent's bank account before winning the case?
Potentially. Seizure or attachment before judgment can reach money held by third parties that is due to the defendant, but you must satisfy the court that the claim has merit and that the defendant intends to move or dispose of assets to defeat enforcement.
Is it enough that the defendant is insolvent?
No. Proving that liabilities exceed assets, without evidence of an intention to dispose of property or move it beyond the court's reach, has been held insufficient.
Can I stop a land transfer at the Land Office?
Yes, in principle. The court may order the registrar to suspend registration, amendment, or cancellation relating to the disputed property or the defendant's property, where there is reason to fear such dealings will cause you damage.
What happens if my application turns out to have been unjustified?
The defendant may apply within thirty days of the judgment for compensation, and the court may order you to pay and enforce against you as a judgment debtor.
Can I apply if our contract says disputes go to arbitration?
Yes. A court may grant interim measures before or during arbitration, but the order lapses if arbitration is not commenced within the period set.
Speak to a Thai Litigation Lawyer
Interim measures decide whether a judgment is worth anything, and they are won on evidence assembled before the other side realises what is coming. Our bilingual litigators advise on asset tracing, prepare and argue applications for attachment, injunctions, and suspension of registration, and defend clients against measures obtained without proper grounds. Contact us as soon as you suspect assets are being moved.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice. Interim measures are discretionary and depend on the evidence and the facts of each case. Please consult a licensed Thai attorney before applying.
Related Content
Land due diligence is a critical aspect of real estate transactions, ensuring that buyers, sellers, and investors have a comprehensive understanding of the legal, financial, and physical aspects of a property.
13 ก.พ. 2024
Working in Thailand without a work permit is an offence, and so is employing someone who does not have one. The penalties changed significantly in 2018, and much of the information still circulating online quotes a repealed statute with far harsher prison terms. The current position is more proportionate but still serious, particularly for employers, who are fined per foreign worker and face a hiring ban on a second offence. This guide sets out what the law actually requires now, what the penalties are, and the practical points that catch both foreign staff and the businesses that hire them.
9 ก.ย. 2026
Losing your job in Thailand raises an urgent question: what are you actually entitled to? Thai labour law protects employees — Thai and foreign alike — when they're dismissed. Here's a plain-language guide to notice, severance, and your right to challenge an unfair dismissal.
13 ก.พ. 2024
