1/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 15 (No. 547) 2005
Likid Tubtimthong v. Laor Tubtimthong

Re: Paternity

The first defendant and the plaintiffs' mother have lived together as husband and wife since 2480 (1937), but they do not have the Thailand marriage license. Furthermore there is no evidence proving the first defendant has registered the plaintiffs as his adopted children or that the court has passed a judgment recognizing the defendant as the father of the plaintiffs.  Neither plaintiff has a legal father.  According to Section 156/2 of the Civil and Commercial Code, children cannot sue their parents. As the plaintiffs are not the legally recognized children of the defendant, they can sue the first defendant.

1/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 36 (No. 256) 2005
Peranut Viannak vs. Arkarnsonkroa Bank

Re: Labor; Employment Contract

The plaintiff is the manager of the consumer credit department. His responsibility is to analyze and manage the consumer credit system. However the plaintiff gives consumer credit without performing any analysis. The plaintiff’s behavior is not in compliance with the bank's regulations. Although there is no evidence of whether the noncompliance of the plaintiff is intentional, the plaintiff's actions demonstrate that he is irresponsible and this is the reason why the defendant does not trust the plaintiff to work for the company anymore. The defendant's reasons for terminating the employment contract of the plaintiff are valid.  The defendant does not have to pay indemnity to the defendant or allow the defendant to work for the company again.

1/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 52 (No. 406) 2005
Chat Cheowchan vs. Veerachai Tungthrongvachakig

Re: Sale-Purchase Agreements

The plaintiff and the defendant made a sale-purchase contract. The purchase was to be made in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant had the responsibility to divide the Thailand land into parcels and then transfer the ownership of the parcels to the plaintiff.  In order for the defendant to transfer the parcels, the defendant must register a transfer of ownership.  However, when the time for registration came, the defendant refused to divide the land and was not ready to register the transfer.  Although the plaintiff did not come for his appointment with the defendant and it is unclear whether the plaintiff had the money to purchase the land, the plaintiff did not default on the agreement.  Therefore the defendant has no right to confiscate the money that the plaintiff has already paid.  The agreement stated that both the plaintiff and the defendant must pay all money owed to one another. When the plaintiff sent a notice letter for the defendant to appear to register the transfer of ownership, the defendant failed to appear. This means that the defendant did not follow through with the agreement. Therefore the defendant must return the plaintiff's money. The plaintiff also has the right to request a penalty from the defendant.