Thailand noise law Archives - Geonoise Asia Co., Ltd.

Airport noise is one of the most sensitive environmental issues in any growing city. Airports are critical for economic development, but continuous overflight noise and vibration can lead to complaints, protests and, eventually, lawsuits.

In Thailand, a set of decisions by the Supreme Administrative Court on noise around Suvarnabhumi Airport has become an important reference for how courts may treat airport noise disputes in Southeast Asia. The facts and legal issues are summarised in an academic article on environmental cases at the Supreme Administrative Court published in Thai Legal Studies (https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/download/282333/180605/1159909).

These judgments do not simply ask “is the noise too loud?” They also address when a claim is filed too late, how much weight to give zoning and safety zones, and how far a discretionary compensation scheme creates enforceable rights. Together they form a practical playbook for airports, regulators, developers and consultants.

Case overview: residents versus Airports of Thailand

Residents in several communities around Suvarnabhumi alleged that they suffered from aircraft noise, vibration and air pollution from take-offs and landings. Some had built houses or bought land after the State had already designated the area as an air navigation safety zone for the airport. As flight volumes increased, the communities filed claims in the administrative courts against Airports of Thailand (AOT) and relevant authorities.

The residents’ demands covered a wide spectrum: reconsideration of environmental approvals, operational restrictions such as night-flight limits, and compensation for both property damage and loss of quality of life.

Continuous noise and limitation periods

A threshold question was whether the lawsuits were time-barred. Suvarnabhumi opened in 2006, but the claims were filed only in 2013. Under Thai administrative procedure, actions against public authorities normally need to be brought within a relatively short period.

The Supreme Administrative Court held that aircraft noise, vibration and air pollution from the airport constitute a continuing situation, not a one-off event. As long as the noise and its impacts persist, the alleged wrongful act is treated as continuing. This means the “clock” for limitation cannot be calculated only from the opening date of the airport; it must take into account ongoing impacts at the time the claims were filed.

For large infrastructure projects across Southeast Asia, this is a clear signal: years of operation do not automatically remove litigation risk where continuous environmental noise is alleged.

Why the residents ultimately lost

Even though the cases were considered timely, the Court still dismissed the claims. Three themes were decisive.

1. Building in a known high-noise zone

Many houses were built in an area that had already been formally declared an air navigation safety zone for Suvarnabhumi. The Court viewed this as a form of risk acceptance. When buyers or developers choose to locate in an area clearly designated to support high levels of aircraft activity, their expectation of tranquillity cannot be the same as in an ordinary residential neighbourhood far from flight paths.

In simple terms: if you move into an area that is obviously close to a major airport, you accept more noise risk than someone who buys in a quiet suburb.

2. Performance of AOT and state agencies

The Court reviewed mitigation steps taken by AOT and the authorities, including façade insulation programmes, buy-back schemes in the most affected zones, and installation of noise monitoring stations, all under Cabinet resolutions and environmental policy decisions. It concluded that there was no clear breach of statutory duties that would amount to tortious conduct. Without a proven violation of specific legal obligations, the Court declined to impose damages under the Civil and Commercial Code.

3. Compensation schemes as discretionary, not automatic

The residents argued that Cabinet resolutions on noise compensation created an automatic right to payment for everyone in the area. The Court disagreed. It treated the scheme as a framework for administrative discretion, allowing authorities to define eligibility areas and target groups. As long as that discretion was exercised within legal and rational boundaries, the courts would not replace the policy decision with their own.

The result: the Court recognised the seriousness of the noise concerns but did not order AOT to pay compensation to the particular claimants.

Practical lessons for airports and infrastructure projects

The Suvarnabhumi case offers several concrete lessons for airport operators, infrastructure developers and governments across Southeast Asia.

1. Continuous noise means continuous legal exposure

Projects that generate ongoing noise – airports, ports, elevated expressways, rail lines, large industrial plants – can face litigation many years after opening. Ongoing monitoring, documentation and stakeholder engagement are therefore essential parts of risk management, not optional extras.

2. Zoning, planning and disclosure matter

Clear land-use planning around airports, including publicly accessible noise contour maps and safety zones, is not just good practice; it can be decisive in court. When buyers and developers have been clearly informed of airport-related noise, courts may be less inclined to treat later complaints as unexpected or unfair.

3. Design compensation schemes around data

Where governments choose to offer façade insulation, buy-back or ex gratia payments, eligibility criteria should be tied to measured or modelled noise exposure and applied consistently. Transparent, data-driven schemes are more likely to be upheld as reasonable exercises of discretion.

4. Reliable noise data is the best defence

Baseline measurements before operations, long-term noise monitoring, clear reporting of results and documented mitigation upgrades all help show that operators and authorities have taken noise seriously. In any dispute, well-documented acoustic evidence is the strongest defence.

How Geonoise Asia can help

The Suvarnabhumi case highlights that airport noise is not just about decibel levels; it sits at the intersection of acoustics, law, urban planning and community relations. Geonoise Asia is well positioned to support stakeholders across the region by:

Producing airport noise maps and contour studies to support zoning and land-use decisions.
Designing and evaluating noise mitigation measures, from barriers and operational restrictions to building façade upgrades.
Implementing long-term environmental noise monitoring networks that provide defensible data for regulators, airport operators and communities.
Preparing technical reports and acting as independent expert witnesses in noise-related disputes and hearings.

With robust acoustic data, clear visualisation and transparent communication, airports and other infrastructure projects can reduce conflict with neighbouring communities and manage legal risk more effectively.

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.