ข้ามไปเนื้อหาหลัก / Skip to main content

Comparing dispute resolution routes

Before filing suit, weigh the time cost and enforceability of each route side by side.

Negotiated settlement agreement

The parties still communicate and want to preserve the commercial relationship

Certifying authority
The parties themselves, with counsel drafting the documents
Indicative timeline
The shortest of the three routes
Pitfalls / common rejections
A loosely drafted agreement can be hard to enforce after a later default

Arbitration under the contract clause

The contract contains an arbitration clause, or the parties agree later

Certifying authority
The arbitral institution named in the contract
Indicative timeline
Variable — generally shorter than multi-instance litigation
Pitfalls / common rejections
Challenging or enforcing an award across borders adds further steps

Litigation before the Thai courts

Negotiation failed, or a judgment is needed for enforcement

Certifying authority
The court with jurisdiction over the case type
Indicative timeline
Highly variable by instance and caseload
Pitfalls / common rejections
Limitation periods and early evidence gathering matter more than the pleading itself

Note: Timelines above are practical estimates from live casework and can change with each authority's policy; confirm with the receiving authority before booking travel. If you would rather not test routes by trial and error, our advisers can assess which route fits your case.

See the document checklist for this service

Let our advisers map the route

Send document photos and your destination country. We assess which route fits and can run the full process, with regular status updates.

Let our advisers map the route