Article 421: Abuse of right, bad-faith use

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2573/2554 (2011)

   Building on one's own land in a dense urban development, where the neighbour could reasonably expect such building, is a normal and justified exercise of a right. It is neither the exercise of a right that can only have the purpose of injuring another under section 421 nor a cause of disturbance beyond what should be expected under section 1337.

   A subdivision developer that has impliedly represented that the plan's roads will be provided must maintain them, as they are public utilities burdened by a servitude. But the disputed road lay in the part of the land the developer never used or built on and never in fact offered for sale, which had stood empty for twelve years with concrete blocks across its entrance and no lot owner objecting, so it was not burdened by a servitude at all. When the developer sold that land to defendant 1, who built a solid concrete wall about three metres high on his own land behind the plaintiff's shophouse, the Court held this was a normal and justified exercise of rights in a dense commercial district, which the plaintiff should have expected, and not a tort under sections 421 and 1337.

   Lire la décision complète (deka.in.th)

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 8027/2546 (2003)

   Section 421 does not apply where the plaintiff has not suffered special damage different from the general public; a private claimant cannot use section 421 to enforce rights against occupation of public land absent special prejudice.

   The defendant occupied a strip of public land between the plaintiff's land and a public road by planting trees and building a bathroom. The plaintiff's land had not originally abutted the road, so the plaintiff had no prior access right across the public strip. The Court held this was not a case for section 421 (or section 1337): the plaintiff had not suffered special damage different from the general public, and the defendant's occupation of public land: while unlawful vis-à-vis the state: did not give the plaintiff a private cause of action for abuse of rights.

   Lire la décision complète (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.