Preliminary Injunctions in Thailand: Securing Interim Relief Before Judgment

What a Preliminary Injunction in Thailand Actually Does

A preliminary injunction is a court order that preserves the status quo or protects a claimant’s position while a case is pending. Thai law treats it as a “provisional measure before judgment,” and the rules sit primarily in Sections 254 to 270 of the Civil Procedure Code. In practice, the court grants temporary relief so that the eventual judgment is not rendered meaningless by the defendant’s actions in the meantime.

Importantly, an interim order is not a finding on the merits. The court does not decide who ultimately wins. Instead, it weighs urgency and risk, then issues a protective order that lasts until the case concludes or the court varies it. Because the measure is temporary, the claimant must still prove the underlying claim through the normal Thai court process.

The Four Provisional Measures Available Under Section 254

Section 254 of the Civil Procedure Code gives a plaintiff four categories of interim relief. A claimant may request one or several, depending on the threat. Each measure targets a different way that a defendant might frustrate a future judgment.

Brand owners most often rely on the second category. For example, the recent wave of Thai cases involving unauthorized franchise outlets shows how courts now grant injunctions that stop former licensees from continuing to use a brand. As a result, the dispute is treated not merely as a contract issue but as ongoing trademark infringement, which justifies urgent relief.

What the Court Requires Before Granting Interim Relief

Thai courts do not grant a preliminary injunction lightly. Section 255 sets the threshold, and judges apply it carefully because the order restricts a defendant before any finding of liability. Although the wording is technical, the practical test rests on four pillars.

1. A strong prima facie case

First, the claimant must show that the claim has clear merit. The evidence does not need to be conclusive, but it must demonstrate a genuine and likely right. Therefore, a well-documented application with contracts, registrations, and proof of breach carries far more weight than bare allegations.

2. Urgency and real risk

Next, the court looks for a concrete threat. The claimant must explain why waiting for judgment would cause harm, for instance because assets are being transferred or infringing goods are flooding the market. Without urgency, the court will simply let the case proceed normally.

3. Irreparable harm or difficulty in enforcement

The applicant must also show that delay would cause serious injury or make a future judgment hard to enforce. Money damages alone are sometimes inadequate, especially where reputation, market share, or unique property is at stake.

4. Proportionality

Finally, the court balances the harm to each side. If the injunction would cripple a legitimate business for a thin claim, the judge may refuse it or impose conditions. Consequently, a focused request usually succeeds where an overbroad one fails.

Emergency Applications: Acting Within Days

Ordinary injunction motions are heard with both parties present, which takes time. When a threat is immediate, however, Sections 266 to 267 allow an emergency application. In an urgent case, the court can hear the motion the same day and issue an order without first notifying the defendant.

This ex parte route is powerful, yet it carries a trade-off. Because the defendant has no chance to respond initially, the court scrutinizes the application closely and may later review the order once the other side appears. Moreover, the claimant must act in good faith and disclose all relevant facts. If material information is hidden, the court can discharge the order and award compensation.

Emergency relief matters most in fast-moving situations: a shipment of counterfeit goods clearing customs, a defendant wiring funds offshore, or a partner racing to register a disputed share transfer. In each scenario, a few days can decide the outcome, so early legal action is essential.

Specialized Courts and Arbitration

Different forums handle interim relief in different ways. The Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court regularly grants preliminary injunctions in counterfeiting, patent, and franchise disputes, and it has shown a clear willingness to protect rights holders before trial. For international businesses, this court is often the fastest path to stopping infringement.

Arbitration users also retain access to the courts. Under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), a party may ask a Thai court for interim measures before or during arbitration. In other words, choosing arbitration does not strip you of urgent protection, because the court still backs the process with provisional relief.

The Cost of Getting It Wrong: Security and Damages

Interim relief cuts both ways. To balance the risk to the defendant, the court may order the claimant to post security as a condition of the injunction. This security covers potential losses if the order later proves unjustified.

Furthermore, Section 263 of the Civil Procedure Code exposes a claimant to liability for damages when an injunction is wrongly obtained or the main claim fails. A defendant who suffered loss from an improper freeze or restraint can therefore pursue compensation. For this reason, applicants should weigh the strength of their case before seeking aggressive measures, and they should keep requests narrowly tailored to the actual harm.

Practical Steps for Foreign Businesses

When a dispute threatens your assets, contracts, or brand, speed and preparation determine success. The following steps help foreign companies position an injunction application effectively.

• Gather evidence early. Assemble contracts, registrations, correspondence, and proof of the threat before filing, because the court decides on the documents in front of it.
• Identify the right measure. Match the remedy to the risk, whether that means freezing assets, restraining a sale, or suspending a registration.
• Assess urgency honestly. Decide whether an emergency ex parte motion is warranted, or whether an ordinary application is more credible.
• Prepare for security. Budget for the possibility that the court will require a deposit or bank guarantee.
• Plan the enforcement endgame. Interim relief preserves value, but you still need a strategy to win the main case and enforce the judgment afterward.

Above all, treat interim relief as part of a wider litigation and dispute resolution strategy rather than a standalone fix. A preliminary injunction protects your position, but disciplined case management converts that protection into a final, enforceable result.

Frequently Asked Questions