10/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 86 (No. 8498) 2006
The Government Prosecutor of the Family and Juvenile Court of Nakorn Ratchasima vs. Mr. Nattawut or Nattawut or Nui Pidawong

Re: Testimony of Child Not Over 10 Years Old

Although Ms. Jo testified to the public prosecutor that she did not have a psychologist when she was questioned, a psychologist did join the judicial proceedings and the legal advisors of the defendant and a public prosecutor did cross examine and re-examine this witness by a psychologist without a party protesting.  The testimony of Ms. Jo is therefore not a violation of the first paragraph of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.       

10/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 96 No. 8613/2006
First Lieutenant Saart Sabasadtrasorn vs. Akarn Songkrao Bank

Re: Land Rights; Intervention

The facts demonstrate that before the Court of First Instance investigated the petition for the petitioner's land claim, the Court of First Instance ordered the petitioner to send a copy of the complaint to the intervener to give him the opportunity to intervene.  While the intervener did not intervene in the case before the Court of First Instance issued an order regarding the Thailand land ownership, it must be considered that the intervener is a party outside the case who has the right to prove in this case that his right to the land is better than the petitioners.  The Order of the Court of First Instance regarding the rights to the land does not apply to the parties according to Section 145 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code.  Because the intervener is the person holding the land right, the intervener is therefore an interested party in enforcing the judgment or court order and has refuted the land right and has asked to be a party in the judgment or order according to Section 57 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code.  The Court of First Instance can investigate the petition and the intervening petition in considering the controversy over the rights to the land.

10/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 99 No. 8698/2006Mr. Somboon Prakobkarndee vs. Ms. Suttinee Visutiwat

Re: Land Purchase; Debt; Execution

According to the received facts, the petitioner made an agreement with the second defendant to purchase land and paid the full amount and occupied the land.  The only remaining step was for the land owner to register their right to the land so the right could be transferred to the petitioner.  In this case the petitioner is a person who can register their right to the land according to Section 1300 of the Civil and Commercial Code.  The execution of a judgment regarding a debtor case does not affect this right.  The plaintiff does therefore not have the right to seize the land for executing the judgment because it would affect the right of the petitioner according to the above law.  The petitioner has the right to petition to release the land the plaintiff has seized.