Supreme Court Opinions |
DIVORCE
• Mrs.Thidatip Srirun vs. Mr. Lerts Srirun
The plaintiff registered her marriage with the first defendant, who thereafter registered a subsequent marriage with the second defendant and lived with the second defendant as husband and wife although the first defendant and the plaintiff had not yet divorced. The plaintiff filed a divorce in Thailand and claims for right to child support payment from the first defendant. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Appellate Court on child support payment issues in this case.
CONDOMINIUM
• Miss Napit Injan vs. Sabkeaw Co., Ltd
The plaintiff (buyer) did not make the transfer of condominium ownership within the specified time as stated in the letter the defendant (seller) claimed was sent to the plaintiff, yet the defendant made another appointment to transfer ownership of the condominium unit at a later date, and permitted the plaintiff to inspect the cracks in the wall of the disputed unit. The court finds that, although the defendant's letter stated that the agreement would be terminated if the transfer of ownership was not made in the specified period, the agreement was not invalidated in this instance as the defendant's actions were indicative of the defendant's intentions to sell the condominium unit.
ADVERSE POSSESSION OF LAND
Mrs. Payoun Keawketthong et al. vs. Mr. Kamol Tanangsanakul by acting representatives Mr. Koukert Tanangsanakul et al.
Adverse possession of the land of another person, permitted according to section 1382 of the Civil and Commercial Code, is subject to possession of land with a title deed only and based on the condition that the trespasser must have resided on the land for a continuous period of 10 years or more. Based on this condition, the defendants were deemed not entitled to ownership of the disputed land.
|
|
 |
|
Thailand
Legal News Updates:
|
NEWS : |
Geographical Indication Protection for Hom Mali Rice
5 Aug 2008
Thailand is applying for geographical indication (GI) protection with the European Commission for the unique jasmine rice from Thung Kula Ronghai, in Thailand's Northeast, also known in the local language as Hom Mali rice. The GI application process for Hom Mali rice is 50% complete at this stage and will likely be fully completed in two years' time. The GI protection system protects products with a quality and other characteristic unique to its geographical location from competitors, with an inferior product, misleading the public of the origin of the product. Thung Kula Ronghai covers an area of 2 million rai and encompasses the provinces of Buri Ram, Roi Et, Si Sa Ket, Surin, and Yasothon.
|
Financial Institutions Business Act
5 Aug 2008
The new Financial Institutions Business Act, having taken effect on 4 August 2008, is the focus of much controversy with bankers. The act prohibits related-party lending and stipulates criminal penalties for violators. Section 48 specifies bank lending to directors, senior executives, their spouses and minor children.
Under the new Act, the maximum single lending allowable is 5% of the total capital or 25% of the total outstanding loans to a single business group according to sources. This limit will affect loans to large companies and conglomerates, which have numerous subsidiaries and will likely find funding through bond or equity markets more favorable compared to bank loans.
Some bank officials have criticized the Act as being overly broad in its prohibitions on loans to related parties. |
Consumer Case Procedures Act Affects Doctors and Health Service Providers
14 Aug 2008
The 2008 Consumer Case Procedures Act, effective from 23 August, revises the former Consumer Protection Act. The statute of limitations has been extended to three years (or in special cases up to 10 years). The new Act may make it easier for victims of medical malpractice to file legal actions against doctors and health service providers. Prior to the new Act, prosecutions against medical providers were difficult for certain defendants to maintain due to the burden of proof resting on the victims or victims' families and the costs and procedural burden of maintaining such legal actions. Under the current Act, the burden of proof has been shifted from the complainant to the medical provider. In addition, the Act applies to certain other professionals as well as medical professionals.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
