Article 10Force majeure : dépôt au tribunal du domicile

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1374/2546 (2003)

   Where a party cannot reach the competent court in time and files at another provincial court, a judge's order to accept the filing and forward it urgently to the competent court is treated as an acceptance under Section 10 that the party could not proceed by reason of force majeure.

   The plaintiff could not get back to the Udon Thani court in time and asked to file at the Khon Kaen court. The Khon Kaen judge ordered the filing accepted and forwarded to Udon Thani for urgent consideration. The court held this amounted to accepting, under Section 10, that the plaintiff could not proceed at the competent court because of force majeure, and that Khon Kaen had thereby accepted the complaint; later transmission to Udon Thani was an internal court step not affecting the party.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1643/2545 (2002)

   A party who cannot reach the competent court because of an unavoidable obstacle may file the necessary motion, such as a request to postpone the hearing, at the Court of First Instance where the party then is, and it is for that court to rule on the motion under Section 10.

   The plaintiff's lawyer, whose vehicle broke down far from any repair shop, went to the Fang Provincial Court to file a motion to postpone the case. The court held that this was a situation in which the plaintiff could not proceed at the court with jurisdiction by reason of force majeure, so the motion could be filed at the Fang court under Section 10, and it was that court's power to decide whether to grant it.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 5581/2550 (2007)

   Section 10 lets a party file at the court where he happens to be when force majeure prevents filing at the court with jurisdiction, but the obstacle must not be of the party own making. Where the first court had already granted three extensions totalling nearly four months and counsel nevertheless set out to file on the last day, he had not taken the care his position as an advocate required, and a car breaking down on the way in heavy traffic is then his own default and not force majeure.

   The first court granted the plaintiff three extensions of time to appeal, amounting to nearly four months from the date of judgment. Counsel set out to file on the last day, his car broke down on the way, the traffic was heavy, and he applied under section 10 for leave to file the appeal at the Civil Court where he then was. The first court refused, held the appeal inadmissible and dismissed the related applications, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against that order. The Supreme Court held that with nearly four months in which to prepare and write the appeal, travelling to file on the final day showed that counsel had not exercised the care his position required, so the breakdown and the traffic were the consequence of his own default and could not amount to force majeure under section 10.

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