Article 134: No refusal to decide for want of law

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4466/2551 (2008)

   In a civil complaint a party need not cite the legal provisions but only the facts and reasons for liability; the court has power under Section 134 to apply the correct law to the facts it finds proved.

   The Supreme Court held that a civil plaintiff need not cite legal provisions but only the facts and grounds for liability, so under Section 134 the court could apply the State Liability Act to a claim of official wrongdoing that the facts supported.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 15668/2558 (2015)

   Where a party has misunderstood the legal nature of an agreement, the court may under Section 134 apply the correct legal provisions, such as those on reciprocal contracts, without that amounting to deciding beyond the claim under Section 142.

   The plaintiffs mistakenly understood their agreement to be an agency, but the pleaded facts showed a joint undertaking for mutual benefit. The court held it could apply the law on reciprocal contracts under Section 134 without deciding beyond the claim contrary to Section 142.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4308/2565 (2022)

   The court's power under Section 134 to identify and apply the correct law is confined to the pleaded facts; applying a law on a basis that goes beyond or outside the complaint is prohibited by Section 142.

   The trial court had characterised the agreement as an unnamed contract and applied Consumer Case Procedure Act Section 7 together with Section 134. The Supreme Court held this went beyond the complaint and was prohibited by Section 142, though it agreed with the appellate court that the document was in fact a guarantee.

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