Thailand Law Forum Thailand Law Forum  
 
Feature Articles :

History of Cannabis
  and Anti-Marijuana
  Laws in Thailand



Thailand’s Notable
  Criminal Extradition
  Cases


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 (6/2549)

 
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)
 

 

6/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 10 (No. 604) 2006
Montree Nareumon vs. Monjai Naruemon et al.

Re:
Inheritance; Executor of Estate

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant as the executor of an estate for having the inheritance divided and for withdrawing the defendant as the executor of the estate.  It is a dispute in which the defendant is the executor of an estate and the inheritance must be divided and given to the plaintiff.  It is not a personal dispute.  Therefore this is not a case of the petitioner suing her mother and is not prohibited according to Section 1562 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

Although the petitioner will not be able to replace the plaintiff as a party to this case because the case was concluded in the Court of First Instance, the petitioner will be able to receive payment instead of the plaintiff according to a court judgment.  The plaintiff has the right to receive from the defendant as the defendant is the manager of the estate and the plaintiff had the right before death.  The petitioner may receive inheritance from the plaintiff and is the willing executor of the will according to Section 1599 and Section 1600 of the Civil and Commercial Code.  Therefore in this Thailand probate case the petitioner has the right to receive payment according to the court order in place of the plaintiff and to enforce legal proceedings.

 

 

6/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 114 (No. 4786) 2006
Kwanroen Duangmala vs. Sanyalak Mulsuwan

Re: Recognition of Being Son or Daughter

Complaints for recognition of being a son or daughter, according to Passage 3 of Section 1554 of the Civil and Commercial Code, must be filed within one year of coming of age in the event of a child who has come of age.  According to the birth certificate and the Thailand house registration, the petitioner was born on 24 May 1969.  The petitioner filed this petition on 20 October 2003 when he was 34 years old which was beyond the stipulated period of one year after coming of age.  The case of the petitioner does not meet the statute of limitations although the petitioner argues that the deceased never disowned the petitioner and there is not a dispute about the right or duty according to law until the deceased had already died.  The petitioner went to receive assistance funds from the Teacher's Council of Thailand (Cho. Pho. Ko.), but the official would not process his request without evidence that the petitioner was the legal child of the deceased.  This is the incidence which just occurred which disputed the rights of the petitioner.  The petitioner has to use his court rights to request an order that the petitioner is the legal child of the deceased according to Section 55 of the Civil Procedure code.  However the rights to use the court of the petitioner must be within the above prescription period.  The case is not within the prescription period and therefore can not be heard.

 

 

6/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 169 (No. 5978) 2006
Lamduan Keawthai vs. M.C.S. Steel Co. Ltd.

Re: Cancellation of Employment Agreements; Severance Pay

After the defendant prohibited loaning money informally within the company, the plaintiff loaned money in violation of the rules to the defendant's customers and charged interest rates of 10% per month.  This is an unintentional violation of the Act Prohibiting of Collection of Interest Rates Greater than the Schedule.  Although this is not an intentional criminal act, it is a criminal offense committed while working and it takes advantages and creates difficulties for the plaintiff's colleagues and affects their willingness to work.  The defendant's business suffered.  The actions of the plaintiff are a serious violation of the order of the defendant and were intended to damage the defendant.  The defendant may therefore cease to employ the plaintiff and does not have to pay severance pay, give advance notice and this is not an unfair dismissal.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     

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: info@fourladiesforum.com Please read our Disclaimer.

 

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