Article 181: Safeguards for amending pleadings

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1347/2557 (2014)

   Where the plaintiff amends the complaint, Section 181 (2) entitles the defendant to seek leave to amend the answer and rebut the plaintiff's new allegations. A defendant who does not use that opportunity and consents to proceed is left with its original defence.

   After the plaintiff amended its damages claim, the defendant could have moved to amend its answer under Section 181 (2) but did not, and allowed the evidence to be taken and concluded that day. The Court treated the defendant as standing on its original defence.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 5598/2551 (2008)

   Correcting a misspelling in the name of the company's authorised director in the complaint is a minor slip. Such an amendment may be made ex parte under Section 21 (2) and Section 181 (1): the court need not serve a copy of the motion on the defendant in advance or give it an opportunity to object.

   The plaintiff asked to correct a few misspelled letters in the name of the authorised director who had granted the power of attorney. Applying section 17 of the Act establishing the Tax Court together with Sections 21 (2) and 181 (1) of this Code, the Supreme Court held the correction was a minor slip that could be made ex parte, without advance service on the defendant or any chance for it to object. Since that director had in fact granted the power of attorney, the plaintiff had authority to bring the case.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 551/2550 (2007)

   Even where the court has not strictly followed Section 181 (1) before ruling, leave to amend may still be granted where the amendment motion was timely under Section 180, the other party suffered no prejudice, and it could still prove its case.

   The objector moved to amend its objection on the limitation point, within the time allowed by Section 180. The Supreme Court held there was good reason to allow the amendment: the amended plea raised the same issue the objector had already taken, changing only the date on which the ground for revocation was said to have become known, and the petitioner opposing the motion, the official receiver, was not put at a disadvantage because it could still prove why its own application was not time-barred.

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