Article 193 bis: Non-appearance in small claims

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1324/2567 (2024)

   Where a defendant is in default of a defense under section 193/2 paragraph two, the plaintiff must still prove the claim ex parte under section 198 bis, and the court may not give judgment for the plaintiff unless the complaint has merit and is not contrary to law.

   The court held that even when the defendant defaulted in a small claims case under section 193/2 paragraph two, the plaintiff had to prove its case ex parte, and evidence of matters outside the complaint could not support judgment.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 13049/2558 (2015)

   A defendant is not in default of appearance under section 193/2 paragraph two where a representative with authority appears on the hearing date to seek a postponement; refusing the postponement only forfeits the right to cross-examine that day.

   A clerk authorized by the defendants appeared to seek a postponement, so the defendants were not in default of appearance under section 193/2 paragraph two; treating them as in default and hearing the plaintiff ex parte was improper.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 8381/2551 (2008)

   Where the court directs that a case proceed as one without complication, section 196 paragraph two applies the provisions on small claims procedure to it, apart from section 190 quater. Under those provisions, where the plaintiff has been notified of the direction to attend and then does not attend on the hearing date without applying to postpone or explaining the obstacle, the plaintiff is taken not to wish to proceed and the court may order the case struck off the cause list. Separately on fees: where a plaintiff's appeal asks only that the judgment be varied so that the case is struck off, that appeal seeks relief which cannot be calculated as a sum of money, so only the fixed fee of 200 baht is payable and any excess is refunded. That fee ruling follows from what the appeal asked for and is not a rule that a case struck off for non-appearance is non-monetary for fee purposes.

   The trial court had directed that the case proceed as one without complication, so by section 196 paragraph two the small claims provisions applied, and the provision then in force, section 193 bis paragraph one, now section 193/2, empowered the court to strike the case off where the plaintiff, having been notified of the direction to attend under section 193, did not attend on the hearing date without applying to postpone or explaining the obstacle. The Supreme Court held the case should have been struck off on that basis rather than dismissed on the merits. On fees, because the plaintiff's appeal sought only that the judgment be varied so that the case was struck off, it was an appeal seeking relief incapable of being calculated in money, so only 200 baht was payable and the excess was refunded.

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