Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In this case, the plaintiff, who was a consumer, received treatment at a private clinic involving injections of a biomolecular substance. Following the injections, the plaintiff began to experience an allergic reaction, which progressively became more severe and required prolonged medical treatment for nearly two years. The treatment was unsuccessful, and the long-term effects could not yet be determined with certainty.The Supreme Court held that the damage resulted from a substance whose effects required time to manifest. The case therefore fell within the final paragraph of Section 13 of the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551, which provides for a three-year limitation period from the date on which the injured person became aware of the damage and knew the identity of the business operator, subject to a maximum period of ten years from the date the damage occurred. As the allergic symptoms manifested only later, the plaintiff could not be regarded as having had full knowledge of the condition at an earlier stage. The plaintiff’s action was therefore not barred by the limitation period.The Court also ruled on the burden of proof under Section 29 of the same Act. Medical services involve specialized activities and knowledge that are within the possession of the defendants as business operators. The burden therefore rested on the defendants to prove that the biomolecular substance was not harmful or was not the cause of the damage.However, the Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the one-year limitation period under Section 448 of the Civil and Commercial Code should apply, as that period was not appropriate to the particular nature of the damage. The Court also established an approach to the applicable interest rate in accordance with the amended Civil and Commercial Code of B.E. 2564, under which default interest is calculated at the rate of 5% per annum and may subsequently be adjusted by Royal Decree.This judgment provides important guidance on the interpretation of limitation periods and the burden of proof in consumer cases, particularly in the context of medical services where symptoms arising from the services may take time to manifest and their effects may only be capable of assessment at a later stage. The Court therefore placed particular importance on the principles of fairness and consumer protection.

Interesting Article
The defendant sold SHISEIDO and MAC cosmetics at a market. The products did not have Thai-language labels, instructions, directions for use, or warnings, in violation of the laws governing product labeling under Sections 30 and 52 of the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522. The defendant also offered for sale goods that infringed trademarks registered in Thailand.The defendant pleaded guilty, but the Court of First Instance imposed punishment only for the trademark infringement offence. The plaintiff therefore appealed on the issue of product labeling. The Supreme Court held that the defendant had clearly committed both offences and that separate punishments had to be imposed for each offence under Section 91 of the Criminal Code.The judgment was therefore amended by imposing an additional fine of 2,500 baht for the labeling offence, resulting in a total sentence of one month’s imprisonment, suspended for one year, and a total fine of 7,500 baht.This case reinforces the principle that failure to provide labels in accordance with the Notification of the Committee on Labels may result in criminal penalties even where there is no injured party. A person cannot rely on ignorance of the law as a defence. Business operators should therefore recognise that “correct labeling” is important both for consumer protection and for managing legal risk.

Interesting Article
The defendant, who sold houses in a housing development project, concealed from the two consumers, prior to the execution of the contract, the fact that the land and buildings were subject to expropriation, even though the defendant was already aware of this information. This constituted a violation of the rights of the two consumers, who intended to purchase the land and buildings for residential purposes, because the defendant failed to provide sufficiently accurate information regarding the quality and characteristics of the property being sold.Such conduct amounted to advertising containing unfair statements that caused misunderstanding as to material aspects of the property and deprived the consumers of the opportunity to use such information in deciding whether to enter into the contract with the defendant. The Court held that the conduct constituted fraud and unfair advertising under Section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 and infringed the consumers’ rights under Section 4 of the same Act in conjunction with Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code.When the sale contract became voidable and the consumers rescinded the voidable transaction, the contract became void. The defendant was therefore required to refund the purchase price of the house and compensate the consumers for losses connected with the transaction, including transfer fees, mortgage fees, fire insurance premiums, telephone installation costs, and the difference in the value of the property resulting from the lost opportunity.This judgment reinforces the principle that consumers have the right to receive accurate information for the purpose of making an informed decision, and that business operators may not conceal material facts for their own benefit.