In 2024, the Supreme Administrative Court of Thailand issued decision A.58/2567 in a dispute between a tofu factory and local authorities. The case looks simple on the surface – neighbours complained about night-time noise from factory operations – but the judgment sends a strong message to regulators and operators across Southeast Asia: noise nuisance orders must be backed by defensible technical evidence, not just assumptions or feelings.
For Geonoise Asia, this is exactly the type of case where independent acoustic expertise, correct measurements and robust documentation make the difference between a legally sustainable order and one that will be struck down on appeal.
Case background: complaints about tofu factory noise
Residents in an urban neighbourhood complained that a tofu factory was operating at night using machinery and activities that allegedly generated disturbing noise – from production equipment and cleaning to handling water, moving carts and talking. Local officials treated the factory as a potential “health-hazardous business” under Thailand’s Public Health Act B.E. 2535 (1992) and opened an investigation.
Health officers attempted to take sound measurements at the complainant’s house. The resident did not allow instruments to be placed inside the dwelling, so the team installed a meter outside the house for three days. During that period, the tofu production did not run at night and no decisive evidence of excessive noise was captured. Authorities therefore had no measured data showing that noise levels breached any statutory limit.
Despite this, the district director – acting as the local public health authority – issued a formal nuisance abatement order under Section 28 of the Public Health Act. The order instructed the factory owner to “correct and improve” operations and to avoid any actions that would cause noise disturbance at night.
The factory appealed to the Minister of Public Health but received no effective response, and ultimately brought the matter before the Administrative Court, asking for the abatement order to be revoked. The first-instance Administrative Court dismissed the claim and upheld the order, so the operator appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.
What the Supreme Administrative Court decided
At the heart of the case was a very practical question: can a nuisance order be based on assumptions that noise is “likely” to exceed legal limits, without any compliant measurement?
The Court examined the relevant Thai technical standards, in particular:
- The National Environmental Board (NEB) notification on environmental noise limits, which treats noise as a nuisance when the level exceeds background noise by more than 10 dB(A).
- The Department of Health notification on nuisance criteria for noise, which aligns with the same 10 dB(A) concept and requires methodical measurement.
The Court noted that the district office had never actually measured and calculated whether the factory’s noise exceeded background by more than 10 dB(A) during real operating conditions. The only documented conclusion was that if night-time production took place, it “might” disturb nearby residents. There was no quantitative proof, no properly documented measurement session at the relevant times, and no calculation showing a breach of the 10 dB(A) threshold.
On that basis, the Supreme Administrative Court held that:
- A local authority may have power to issue nuisance abatement orders, but that power must be exercised on the basis of reliable technical evidence, not only on subjective impressions or speculative assessments.
- Because no compliant sound measurements were carried out, the authority had not demonstrated that the legal criteria for “noise nuisance” were met.
- The abatement order was therefore unlawful and had to be revoked.
In simple terms: even if neighbours sincerely feel disturbed, the law requires that a noise nuisance be proven using accepted measurement methods and thresholds; “it probably exceeds the standard” is not enough.
Key legal and technical principles from this case
- Scientific evidence is mandatory. For noise nuisance, authorities must rely on correctly executed sound measurements – including equipment, locations, time periods and reference standards – not purely on complaints or officers’ subjective impressions.
- The 10 dB(A) rule matters. In Thailand, environmental and public health regulations treat noise as a nuisance when it exceeds background noise by more than 10 dB(A). Without that differential being established, enforcement is on shaky ground.
- Procedural errors can invalidate orders. If an authority issues a closure or abatement order without going through the legally required measurement and documentation steps, affected operators can challenge the order in court and obtain its cancellation.
- Courts expect professional practice. Environmental and neighbour-noise cases must be built on strong factual and technical foundations, not assumptions.
Implications for regulators, operators and communities in Southeast Asia
For regulators and local authorities
- Do not issue noise nuisance orders without a traceable measurement campaign aligned with your national standards.
- Document sound level meter type, calibration, locations, measurement periods, background levels and calculations.
- Consider partnering with independent acoustic consultants where internal expertise or equipment is limited.
For factories, venues and hospitality operators
- Proactively commission baseline noise surveys around your facility, especially for night-time operations.
- Maintain a measurement record to show regulators and courts that your operations comply with limits, or that you have a mitigation plan in place.
- If you receive a nuisance order, check whether it is supported by proper measurements; if not, you may have legal arguments based on this precedent.
For residents and communities
- Complaints are still important – they trigger investigations – but attaching recordings and indicative sound level readings will increase their weight.
- Court cases are more likely to succeed when community testimony is supported by objective measurements from recognised methods and instruments.
How Geonoise Asia can support as expert witness and technical partner
This case is a textbook example of why independent acoustics expertise is critical in noise disputes:
- Authorities need coherent, standards-based measurements to sustain their orders.
- Operators need robust counter-evidence to challenge orders that are not properly substantiated.
Geonoise Asia can support public and private stakeholders throughout Southeast Asia by:
- Designing and executing noise measurement campaigns that follow national and international standards.
- Preparing clear, court-ready reports that explain methodology, uncertainty and compliance in language judges and lawyers can work with.
- Acting as independent expert witnesses in administrative and civil proceedings where noise levels, nuisance and mitigation measures are in dispute.
- Helping regulators and municipalities build internal procedures for defensible measurements and documentation.
For local authorities, that reduces litigation risk and increases public trust. For operators, it ensures that your side of the story is backed by credible data. For communities, it means noise complaints are treated seriously and resolved on the basis of facts, not just emotion.
Checklist: building a defensible noise nuisance case
Whether you are a regulator, operator or community representative in any Southeast Asian country, this Thai judgment suggests a simple checklist:
- Define the relevant legal standard (for example, 10 dB(A) above background, night-time limits, zoning rules).
- Plan the measurement (locations, time windows, instrumentation, calibration, background measurements).
- Record and store raw data and logs – not just summary numbers.
- Analyse and report with traceability so that another expert can independently review your findings.
- Engage independent acoustics experts early when you expect the dispute may escalate to court.
Geonoise Asia is ready to support stakeholders across Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore and the wider region who need evidence-based, defensible solutions to noise nuisance disputes – from early complaint investigations all the way to expert testimony in court.
