Thailand Law Forum Thailand Law Forum  
Feature Articles :

History of Cannabis
  and Anti-Marijuana
  Laws in Thailand

Thailand’s Notable
  Criminal Extradition

Guide for Tourists
  to Laws in Thailand

Neither Free nor Fair:
  Burma’s Sham Elections

Sex Laws in Thailand:
  Part 1

Renewable Energy
  in Thailand

Transsexuals and
  Thai Law

Foreign Mafia in


Thailand Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Note concerning Thailand Supreme court opinions: Thailand is a civil law jurisdiction that also has elements of the common law system. Accordingly, the principle law sources are acts, statutes and regulations. However, published Supreme court decisions are an important part of the legal development of Thailand and are frequently used as a secondary authority. (Summaries sponsored by Chaninat & Leeds)


Supreme Court Opinion No. 247/2548
Napor v. Thong-yoy

Re: Gambling Loans

The plaintiff, the defendant and their associates “play shares” (a type of gambling where the players wager money on shares) with the plaintiff as host. According to the agreement between the host and the players, after a player bids upon a share, he or she must sign a loan for the wagered sum of money. The defendant wagered 82,800 baht which she borrowed from the plaintiff. The loan agreement is not forged and the defendant is liable for performance of truth to the plaintiff according to the loan agreement.


Supreme Court Opinion No. 1456/2548
Pimpru v. Peingkok-krawd

Re: Land, Possessory Right

An area of the Thailand land given to the defendant by the plaintiff is disputed. In order to settle the dispute, the Supreme Court must determine how much land was given to the defendant by the plaintiff in order to determine if the estate in dispute is the Thailand property of the plaintiff or of the five defendants. If it appears that the plaintiff never gave an estate to the first defendant, then the estate belongs to the plaintiff. Thus the Court must reconsider to whom the land belongs. A letter bestowing the estate upon the defendant written by the plaintiff and Nor. Sor. 3 specify that the plaintiff and Por. gave an estate of 3 Ngan 16 m 2 to the defendant, in accordance with Nor. Sor.3. When the first defendant took possession of the estate, the plaintiff never objected. When the first defendant had a land officer survey the land for a title deed, the plaintiff acknowledged the boundary line in his capacity as the owner of the adjoining land, although he was unaware of the exact area of the defendant's estate. According to the plaintiff's recorded testimony, the plaintiff agreed that the land survey was correct and there was no encroachment on the plaintiff's Thailand leased property. Therefore the first defendant's ownership of the estate was acknowledged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's acknowledgement of the land deed is of greater importance than either the letter or Nor. Sor. 3. The 1 Rai 99 m 2 area registered on the title deed is therefore the area of the defendant's estate rather than the 3 Ngan 60 m 2 area specified in the letter of bestowal and Nor. Sor. 3.


Supreme Court Opinion No. 1602/2548
Wattanatum v. Leetrakoolwalna

Re: Declaration of Intention, Hire of Property

The plaintiff inherited the building in dispute from Por. A contract of hire made between Por., as the landlord, and the defendant, as the lessee, will expire after 15 years. Clause 11 of the contract of hire specifies that the landlord will renew the contract of hire every 3 years after the initial period of hire expires. This specification is only a promise from Por. and does not make the contract of hire come into existence. The promise does not have a binding effect upon Por. because it does not appear that the defendant declared his intention to accept Por.'s offer before Por's death. The defendant acknowledged that Por. died on July 15 th B.E. 2537 before the contract of hire expired on December 31 B.E. 2538. According to Section 360 of The Civil and Commercial Code, the provision of Section 169 paragraph 2 does not apply to this case. On the ground that the promise of Por. is not a legal contract, it does not have a binding effect upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not need to comply with the provisions of Section 1599 and Section 1600. Because the letter of renewal of the contract of hire is ineffective and does not make a new contract of hire come into existence, the plaintiff is able to sue for the eviction of the defendant and the dependents of the defendant from the disputed building. After the expiration of the contract of hire, the defendant and his dependents had no right to live in the disputed building. Due to the fact that the defendant and his dependents occupy the building unlawfully, they are liable for eviction and their actions that disabled the plaintiff from gaining interest from the building in dispute.


Supreme Court Opinion No. 593
Kritpol v. Lertsongkram

Re: Joint Liability of Employers

The first defendant, an employee of the second defendant, hit the first plaintiff's taxi causing her injury while working for the first second defendant. The first plaintiff's taxi was driven by the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff no longer has a case because although the Supreme Court found only the first defendant negligent, the Appeals Court ruled the second plaintiff was also negligent. However, the judgment of the Supreme Court will prevail and both defendants have to make compensation to the plaintiffs.


Supreme Court Opinion No. 360
Government Savings Bank v. Ruksil

Re: Prescription and Labor

The plaintiff sued the second defendant for defecting on his duty and causing damage while working for the plaintiff. He is asking the first defendant for compensation. This plaintiff is accusing the defendant of committing a wrongful act while working and therefore breaching a labor agreement. In this case, there is no specified period of prescription, thus the period is ten years.


Supreme Court Opinion No. 1756/2548
Rattanabadin Company Limited v. Maochai

Re: Contract of Compromise

A contract of compromise is a contract by which parties settle a dispute through mutual concessions. The first defendant delegated the third defendant, a party not liable to the plaintiff, to meet the plaintiff's attorney without an appointment. The third defendant acted independently when he arranged a contract of compromise between the first defendant and the plaintiff through which the first defendant will pay an outstanding debt to the plaintiff in installments. The third defendant's intentional and independent actions make him jointly liable with the first defendant. A clause in the above contract specifies that the plaintiffs did not waive their claims to liability from the first and the second defendant. The contract clearly specifies that it is not intended to fulfill the first and second defendant's arrears. Although the contract is called the contract of compromise, it is not a legally recognizable contract of compromise. It is a contract made by the third defendant who by this action became jointly liable.


Supreme Court No. 886 /2548
Scandinavialeasing Public Limited v. Sahapybulkij

Re: Designation of authorization

Jor. and Kor. are employees of I, S. Company. Wor. is the Thailand company director. Wor., the plaintiff, sued Jor. and Kor., the defendants, for acting without authorization on behalf of the company. Jor. and Kor. claim that they acted with authorization and therefore the plaintiff does not have the right to sue. The plaintiff's Power of Attorney contains the following statements; "Sor. and Wor., the authorized directors of I,S. Company have designated Wor. to be the solely authorized company agent with the power to affix his signature together with the stamp and the official seal and/or to act on company's behalf as follows:. Clause 1. The authorized person is empowered to sue.. Clause 9. ..authorized to designate a sub-agent vested with the power to take any of the above actions." A second POA contains statements such as, "Wor, the authorized director of I,S. company, designates Jor. and/or Kor. to be company agents empowered to act on the behalf of the company as follows; ." The final POA specified that Wor. is the appointee authorized to act as the company director. Section 10 of the Civil and Commercial Code states, "When a clause in a document can be interpreted in two ways, weight will be given to the interpretation that allows for stricter implementation". Therefore, the POA and the plaintiff's deed of appointment, specify the plaintiff as the person authorized to act for the company. Jor. and Kor. are sub-agents who can carry out entrusted duties but cannot act as the authorized director of a company. Therefore, the plaintiff is empowered to sue.


Chaninat & Leeds offered support in translating Supreme Court case law. Chaninat & Leeds is a Thailand Law Firm practicing family and business law. Chaninat & Leeds specializes in Thailand criminal defense lawyer. Chaninat & Leeds is managed by an American attorney who specializes in immigration with a focus on family visas including prenuptial agreement Thailand. For any submissions, comments, or questions, e-mail the Thailand Law Forum at: Please read our Disclaimer.


© Copyright Thailand Law Forum, All Rights Reserved
(except where the work is the individual works of the authors as noted)