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 Lawyer Blog:
 Courts Order Thai
  Military to Cease
  Labeling Transsexuals
  as Mentally Ill
 Work Permit Law
  Changes in Thailand
 Bahamian Supreme Court
  Ruling Backs
  Prenuptial Agreement
  “The Neutron Bomb
  the Global Financial
 The Effects of the US
  Government’s Policies
  on Americans Living
 Chinese Assimilation
  in Thailand vs. Malaysia
 Illegal Wildlife
  Trafficking in Asia:
  Thailand as a Hub?
 Rabbi Enforcing
  Jewish Divorce Order
  Arrested by FBI
 U.S. Prenuptial
  Agreements in Thailand:
  Why Thai Law is
 US Immigration in
 Abortion and Family
  Planning Law in
  the Philippines
 U.S. Courts and the
  Application of Foreign
  Law to International
  Prenuptial Agreements
 Thailand Blasted by 2011
  Human Trafficking Report
 US Expats on Alert:
  New US Tax Law
  Extends IRS’s Reach
 Hangover 2 and
  the Thai Censors
 Thailand’s Film
  Industry Steps Up

Supreme Court Opinions Summaries
(Volume 4)

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 secondary authority. (Summaries sponsored by Chaninat & Leeds Co., Ltd)


Supreme Court Opinion No. 4145/2005
Boonyun Sunthorrawat vs. Umpai Treesuwom

Re: Signatory Authority (Fingerprint)

Although the finger-print of the plaintiff on the Power of Attorney did not show the pattern of a finger, there was a description underneath the marking in ink that identified it as the finger-print of a person. This is evidence that it is a finger-print and not an ink smudge. According to Paragraph 2, Section 9 of the P.P.P., a fingerprint on paper accompanied by two signatures of witnesses is a recognized signature. Furthermore the witnesses testified on behalf of the plaintiff that the ink marking was made by the plaintiff's right thumb, a statement that could verified due to the particular nature of human fingerprints. Therefore the finger-print on the Power of Attorney was legitimate.

Supreme Court Opinion No. 6471/2005
Porntip v. Panomprai Katesa

Re: Divorce

While the defendant and the plaintiff were separated, the plaintiff accused the defendant of having an affair. The plaintiff claimed the affair caused her severe humiliation and demonstrated that the defendant did not wish to live together as husband and wife because he inflicted a great deal of pain on his family. Throughout their four years of separation, the defendant also failed to provide expenses to the plaintiff and did not return to live with the plaintiff. It is clear that the plaintiff agreed to live a 0

part from the defendant because they could not live together as husband and wife during their 3 year marriage. The plaintiff therefore has the right to file for divorce.

Supreme Court Opinion No. 1651/2005
Mr. Prasit Panpa vs. Mr. Tam Rodyoi

Re: Contracts; Loan Agreements

The defendant procured a loan from the plaintiff in the amount of 10,000 baht. The plaintiff signed a loan agreement but did not write down any details of the loan and gave the agreement to the defendant to sign. At a later time the plaintiff filled in content and the amount of money loaned claiming the defendant had procured a loan from him in the amount of 300,000 baht. However because the defendant did not acknowledge the plaintiff's action, the loan agreement did not stand as evidence in court.

Supreme Court Opinion No. 5168/2005
Rolex A.S. Company vs. Nuntana Pitisaithakorn

Re: Trademarks

The trade-mark “Rolex” is a very popular brand as Rolex A.S. Company is capable of creating quality watches. As a result of the popularity of the "Rolex" brand there are persons who sought to benefit from the brand name “Rolex” without requesting authorization. Although some companies used a trademark similar to the "Rolex" trademark, the trademark of these companies was not similar enough to confuse the customers.

The defendant, the managing director of Solex International company, did register her trade-mark under a name different from "Rolex". Her products are not watches, but jewelry made from expensive metal or bronze. She did not have the intention to violate the trademark law or make her customers confuse her brand with the Rolex company. Although the defendant wishes to produce and sell a watch under the name “Solex”, there is no evidence that customers will confuse this brand with “Rolex” as they know that “Solex” is a trade-mark of a key company. Therefore the defendant can register a trademark under the name “Solex” without being in violation of any laws.

Supreme Court Opinion No. 5492/2005
Saya and Kanong Kumnarai vs. Prasert Mabundit

Re: Sale-Purchase Agreements; Co-Ownership

The defendants and the plaintiff were entitled to a piece of land. The land was divided and owners of sections were designated. The defendants and the plaintiffs had the right to their section of land because they were entitled to the land title deed. When the plaintiff made a sale contract with the defendants for the sale of the northern section of the land it would be complete only when all the co-owners signed the agreement. If the defendant sold the property to the plaintiff without the consent of the co-owners then it would not be binding. Because the land title deed was owned by multiple persons, everyone had the right to every part of their land. Therefore it was impossible for the plaintiff to divide the land for the defendants and himself.

Supreme Court Opinion No. 6580/2005

T.C. Pharmaceutical Industrial vs. Vinai Kongkiatepaiboon

Re: Trademark

The word “sponsor” means support in the English language, therefore it is a natural word and not a word that was created. As for the word “sponsor” in the Thai, it was spelled in the Thai alphabet according to the pronunciation of the English word “sponsor”. The plaintiff registered a trade-mark under the words "sponsor" and “sponsor” (in Thai) in 1983. Products and commercials have been made under this trademark, but they were not successful. The plaintiff registered the trade-mark to produce mineral and other types of drinks, which are products under Category 42. The defendant, however, requested to register a trademark for flip flops under Category 25. Although the defendant and the plaintiff use the same trademark, they are creating different products; therefore the plaintiff can not sue the defendant.

Supreme Court Opinion No. 4464/2548
Managing Capital Sukhumvit Company vs. United Grand Company

Re: Loan Contract

In a previous court case, the defendant was charged with breaching a loan contract with the plaintiff and was forced to mortgage. The defendant counterclaimed that a bank had breached their contract with the defendant therefore causing the company Kor to be unable to manufacture products and pay of their debt. The counterclaim of the defendant, however, was not related to the claim and therefore could not be considered in court.

Supreme Court Opinion No. 7062/2548
Jidorn Thongon vs. Sing/Kumsing Doksutud

Re: Loan Contract

OR took out a loan from the Bor Agriculture Cooperation in the amount of 500,000 baht on behalf of the plaintiff and used the land of the plaintiff as collateral. OR borrowed money on behalf of the plaintiff because the plaintiff was not a member of the Agriculture Cooperation and could not borrow the money himself. OR received money in the amount of 431,928 baht after deducting DEBT and share. The plaintiff alleges that OR gave money to the defendant for the plaintiff, but that the plaintiff never received the money. However as OR was the principle debtor who signed the loan agreement and the loan was not taken out in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not formerly engage the defendant as an agent to receive money on his behalf, the plaintiff has no claim against the defendant. If OR wished to give money to the defendant for giving to the plaintiff, then this is an issue between the defendant an OR. The plaintiff can not sue the defendant in this case.

Supreme Court Opinion No. 7386/2005
Veerachai Narkwatchara vs. Yupa Rutthanasanghirun

Re: Rental Contract

The plaintiff agreed verbally to allow the defendant to continue to rent a building after the rental term in their written contract had elapsed. However the new agreement was not written in the old contract. Although the plaintiff consented to their new agreement before the old contract ended and created a new contract, the consent was not given as a written contract therefore the defendant can not force the plaintiff to allow her to continue to rent the building. Therefore the plaintiff had the right to evict the tenant after their written contract had ended.



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 Lawyer. Chaninat & Leeds is managed by an American attorney 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)