Article 228: Interim orders that may be appealed

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 874/2561 (2018)

   Where a judgment debtor applies to set aside an auction and the court, seeing prima facie evidence that the application is without foundation and is made to cause delay, orders him to find security or to deposit a sum with the court as security for compensation to the judgment creditor, that order is FINAL under section 296 paragraph five of the former Code. The judgment debtor has no right to appeal against it or to bring it on final appeal, and a trial court that accepts such a further appeal acts improperly. An argument that the order must be stayed as one falling within section 228(2) and (3) does not meet this: the order is not appealable at all.

   The defendant applied to set aside an auction. The trial court, finding prima facie evidence that the application was without foundation and was made to cause delay, ordered him to find security or deposit 1,620,000 baht with the court within one month as security for compensation to the plaintiff, and he did not comply. He appealed, contending that as an order within section 228(2) and (3) it and the related proceedings had to be stayed. The Supreme Court held that an order to find security or deposit money in these circumstances is final under section 296 paragraph five of the former Code, so the defendant had no right of appeal or of further appeal, the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss his appeal, the trial court had acted improperly in accepting his final appeal, and the Supreme Court would not entertain it.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3748/2565 (2022)

   An order revoking the acceptance of a claim is not an order refusing or returning a pleading under Section 18 that may be appealed under Section 228. It is an ordinary interim order barred by Section 226(1), so the party must record a written objection to preserve the right to appeal.

   The trial court revoked its earlier acceptance of the claimant's motion. The Supreme Court held this was not a Section 18 refusal or return of a pleading appealable under Section 228, but an ordinary interim order barred by Section 226(1), which required a recorded objection under Section 226(2).

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4474/2558 (2015)

   An order dismissing a motion that does not end the case is an interim order and is not among the orders listed in Sections 227 and 228, so it may not be appealed during the trial and is barred under Section 226(1).

   The trial court dismissed the defendant's motions to reopen and to share in proceeds. The Supreme Court held these were interim orders, not among the Section 227 or 228 orders, so the appeal was barred under Section 226(1) and the appellate proceedings taken on it were improper.

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