What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled on 30+30+30 Leases
A stacked "30+30+30" lease promise — the workaround many foreign buyers relied on to reach a 90-year term on paper — was struck down by Thailand's Supreme Court, but on facts narrower than the headlines suggest. Read the Court's own words before assuming every long-term lease structure is affected.
What the Court actually held
The case, ฎีกาที่ 4655/2566, reached the Supreme Court from the Phuket Provincial Court and the Region 8 Court of Appeal. The dispute centered on Civil and Commercial Code Section 540, which caps a lease of immovable property at 30 years. The landlord and tenant had signed a contract combining an initial 30-year lease with a promise, made the same day, that the lease would be renewed twice more — 30 years each — and the tenant had already paid the rent for all three 30-year periods up front, with no provision to reset rent or terms at either renewal point.
The Court's reasoning, translated from its own official case summary, is specific: because 30 years would pass before each renewal took effect, and land values and economic conditions would ordinarily change over that time, holding the rent and conditions fixed at the original terms across all three periods showed that both parties intended to evade the 30-year statutory cap. On that basis, the Court held the renewal promises void — but the original 30-year lease, properly registered, remained valid.
The facts the ruling turned on
Three specific facts drove the decision, and all three would need to be present for this precedent to apply squarely to another deal:
- The renewal promise was made on the same day as, and as an integral part of, the original lease contract.
- Rent for all three 30-year terms was prepaid in full at the very outset.
- Rent and conditions were fixed identically across the full 90 years, with no mechanism to renegotiate.
The Court's own language leans on this combination repeatedly — it is not a blanket ruling against any lease that mentions renewal. A structure built differently — a genuine option to renew, negotiated fresh with market-rate rent and separate payment at each 30-year mark rather than locked in on day one — sits outside what this case actually decided, though it remains legally untested rather than affirmatively safe.
One further precision: the widely-cited decision date of 18 March 2025 could not be confirmed directly from the Supreme Court's own public case-search system, which does not display an exact judgment date for this record. The holding itself, quoted above, comes straight from the Court's own case summary — the date is secondary-source reporting.
What this means for a lease in Chiang Dao
This is a Phuket case about a private commercial lease, not a Chiang Dao case, and it did not involve a company-held lease. Thai courts apply Supreme Court precedent by extension across the country and across similar fact patterns, which is standard practice — but it means the ruling's reach into a differently structured Chiang Dao deal is an inference, not a certainty.
The practical read for a buyer or lessee here: a registered 30-year lease on Chiang Dao land is real and enforceable for its full term. A same-day, prepaid, fixed-rent promise to renew it twice more should not be treated as securing 90 years — it is very likely unenforceable beyond the first 30, on the reasoning above. If a listing markets "30+30+30" as if the full term were guaranteed, ask specifically how the renewal is structured, and don't pay a premium for a promise this case has already shown a court will look straight through.