4/2550 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 5 (No. 321) 2007
Ms. Sumalee Sinanun vs. Mr. Amnad Punthao et al.

Re: Joint Liability, Employer and Employee; Statute of Limitations

The plaintiff filed a court action against the second defendant, the employer of the first defendant, for liability as regards the wrongful act of the first defendant, committed during the course of the first defendant's employment, based on section 425 of the Civil and Commercial Code. The plaintiff filed a court action on 22 April 2545 (2002) and stated in the court action that the violation occurred on 20 February 2542 (1999). The first defendant's violation was a wrongful act punishable under the Criminal Code, and the Songkhla Court pronounced the maximum punishment against the first defendant for negligently causing the death of another person. Yet a claim for damages punishable according to the Criminal Code, in which the statute of limitations period for a criminal offense is longer according to paragraph 2, section 448 of the Civil and Commercial Code, applies only to a claim against the person or parties directly responsible for the violation and does not apply to unrelated parties to the violation. Therefore, a claim for damages from the second defendant, the employer, must be filed during the period the statute of limitations is in effect according to paragraph 1, section 448 of the Civil and Commercial Code, or 1 year, counting from the day the injured party was aware of the violation and the person responsible for the compensation, or within a period of 10 years from the day the violation occurred. The plaintiff filed a court over 3 years after the wrongful act was committed, and when the statute of limitations for the plaintiff's court action had expired over a year previously. Therefore, the second defendant's agreement, contending that the statute of limitations had expired according to paragraph 2, section 177 of the Civil Procedure Code, is correct. The plaintiff's court action against the second defendant has hence expired because the court action was filed after the statute of limitations had expired, and it does not appear that the plaintiff has just become aware of the second defendant's liability for compensation.

4/2550 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 8 (No. 408) 2007
Lieutenant-Colonel Pratom Buranasiri et al. vs. Anusorn Pipatpisan Limited Partnership et al.

Re: Land, Leases, Income Tax, Tort

The Supreme Court orders the two defendants and related parties to vacate the disputed building belonging to the plaintiff, hand over the building in a repaired state to the plaintiff, and pay compensation until the building has been completely handed over to the plaintiff. According to the judicial review process, it appears that a third party rented a portion of the disputed building from the two defendants. This third party was in continuous possession of the disputed building in place of the two defendants. The hand over of the disputed building by the two defendants was not considered complete until the third party presented the key of the building to the plaintiff in court. It can be deemed that the two defendants delivered the disputed building to the plaintiff in a complete sense on the date the key was received and the plaintiff is entitled to request compensation until that date.

The money or other benefits derived from the lease of the Thailand property is income according to section 40 (5) (a) of the Revenue Code, which is used to calculate income tax. However, the compensation in cash that the plaintiff received based on the Court's judgment is considered compensation for a wrongful act of violation in that the two defendants unlawfully resided in the disputed building, and this compensation is excluded from income tax calculations according to section 42 (13) of the Revenue Code. Therefore the two defendants are not responsible for paying the plaintiff's taxes and are not entitled to income tax deduction in this case.

4/2550 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 49 (No. 1538) 2007
V. Capital Group Investment Fund

Re: Abandoned Company

The defendant, a debtor company, was removed from the Thailand Ministry of Commerce's Register of Businesses by the Bangkok Shareholders' Registrar as an abandoned company. The plaintiff, a third party, received the transfer of rights to request payment for debt of the defendant from a creditor of the abandoned company. The plaintiff was prohibited from filing a court action against the aforementioned debtor company because of the company's status as an abandoned company. The plaintiff therefore is of the opinion that he has not been treated in a fair manner because of the deletion from the Register of the defendant as an abandoned company. However, the plaintiff is entitled to file a court action against the directors of the company, in the role of the company's auditors, for payment of the company's debts and distribution of the company's property prior to dissolution of the company according to section 1250 of the Civil and Commercial Code. However, a petition before the court for the company to be re-registered on the Ministry of Commerce's list of registered companies in order to demand payment for debt is not permitted.