Article 179: Amendment of complaint or answer

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4269/2565 (2022)

   Where new damage to the same building is discovered, the plaintiff may amend to increase the sum in dispute in the original complaint, and because the original and later complaints are connected enough to be tried together, the amendment is proper under Section 179 (1), (2) and its final paragraph, together with Section 180.

   After an engineer found increased damage to the plaintiff's school building before the evidence hearing, the Court held the amendment adding to the sum in dispute was proper, the original and later claims being closely connected.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3365/2558 (2015)

   An amendment that arises from the same conduct already sued upon is connected with the original complaint and may be tried together with it under Section 179. Amendment is not confined only to abandoning some original claims or supplementing the complaint to make it complete.

   The plaintiff, unable to use disputed land in a land-reform zone, amended to claim damages arising from the same conduct. The Court held the amendment connected with the original claim and properly allowed, rejecting a narrow reading of permissible amendment.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 8036/2561 (2018)

   Once a court has properly accepted a complaint concerning immovable property, a later amendment that adds a claim in tort and no longer asks for transfer of the property is a change of circumstances only. It does not take away the power of the court that accepted the complaint to go on and decide the case, under section 173 paragraph two (2).

   The plaintiff sued for transfer of ten title deeds and later amended to add a claim in tort, no longer asking for the transfer. An earlier Supreme Court judgment had already ordered the amended complaint accepted and tried together with the original. The court of first instance nevertheless raised jurisdiction of its own motion and dismissed the case because of that amendment. The Court of Appeal Region 2 set the judgment aside and the Supreme Court affirmed: the amendment was only a change of circumstances and did not remove the first-instance court's power under section 173 paragraph two (2). Only the order for costs was corrected.

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