Article 134 — No refusal to decide for want of law
Texte légal (original thaï)
ไม่ว่าในกรณีใด ๆ ห้ามมิให้ศาลที่รับฟ้องคดีไว้ ปฏิเสธไม่ยอมพิพากษาหรือมีคำสั่งชี้ขาดคดีโดยอ้างว่า ไม่มีบทบัญญัติแห่งกฎหมายที่จะใช้บังคับแก่คดี หรือว่าบทบัญญัติแห่งกฎหมายที่จะใช้บังคับนั้นเคลือบคลุมหรือไม่บริบูรณ์
traduction anglaise
In no case whatsoever shall a court that has accepted a case refuse to give judgment or to make an order deciding the case on the ground that there is no provision of law applicable to the case, or that the provision of law to be applied is obscure or incomplete.
Cette traduction anglaise est fournie à titre indicatif uniquement et n'a pas encore été vérifiée de manière définitive ; référez-vous toujours à l'original thaï.
Annotation de l'entreprise
Section 134 embodies the principle that justice cannot be denied for a gap or obscurity in the law: a court that has taken a case may not refuse to render a judgment or order on the ground that no provision applies or that the applicable provision is vague or incomplete. Read with the rule that a civil complaint need not cite legal provisions, this gives the court power and duty to identify and apply the correct law to the facts it finds, even where a party has invoked the wrong law or mischaracterised the legal relationship. That power, however, operates within the pleaded facts: the court may re-characterise the legal basis but must not decide beyond or outside the claim, a boundary policed by Section 142. The section thus complements Section 142 and the general framework of Sections 131 to 133.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
Section 134 is reassuring for litigants: you cannot be turned away simply because your situation is novel or the statute is unclear, and you do not need to cite the exact legal provision in a civil complaint. What matters far more is pleading the facts and the reasons the other side is liable, because the court will apply the correct law itself. Be careful, though, not to rely on facts outside your pleadings, since the court's power to re-characterise the law stops at deciding beyond the claim. A lawyer can make sure your pleaded facts support every legal theory the court might apply.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 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.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 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.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 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.
Décisions sélectionnées avec numéros de dossier vérifiés dans la base de données de la Cour suprême. Les versions anglaises sont des traductions éditoriales réalisées par le cabinet à des fins d'étude.
Foire aux questions
Can a court refuse to decide because there is no clear law?
No. Section 134 bars a court that has accepted a case from refusing to give judgment on the ground that no law applies or that the law is obscure or incomplete.
Do I need to cite the exact law in my complaint?
In a civil complaint, no. You plead the facts and reasons for liability, and under Section 134 the court applies the correct law to the facts it finds.
Is there a limit to the court applying its own law?
Yes. The court may re-characterise the legal basis under Section 134 but must not decide beyond or outside the pleaded claim, a limit enforced by Section 142.