Article 245 — Who is bound by an appellate judgment
Texte légal (original thaï)
คำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งชั้นอุทธรณ์ให้มีผลเฉพาะระหว่างคู่ความชั้นอุทธรณ์ เว้นแต่ในกรณีต่อไปนี้
(๑) ถ้าคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งที่อุทธรณ์นั้นเกี่ยวด้วยการชำระหนี้อันไม่อาจแบ่งแยกได้ และคู่ความแต่บางฝ่ายเป็นผู้อุทธรณ์ซึ่งทำให้คำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งนั้นมีผลเป็นที่สุด ระหว่างคู่ความอื่น ๆ ถ้าศาลอุทธรณ์เห็นว่าควรกลับคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งที่อุทธรณ์ ให้ศาลอุทธรณ์มีอำนาจชี้ขาดว่าคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งศาลอุทธรณ์ ให้มีผลระหว่างคู่ความทุกฝ่ายในคดีในศาลชั้นต้นด้วย
(๒) ถ้าได้มีการอนุญาตให้ผู้ร้องสอดเข้ามาในคดีแทนคู่ความฝ่ายใด คำพิพากษาศาลอุทธรณ์ย่อมมีผลบังคับแก่คู่ความฝ่ายนั้นด้วย
traduction anglaise
A judgment or order at the appellate level shall take effect only between the parties to the appeal, except in the following cases:
(1) If the judgment or order appealed against concerns the performance of an indivisible obligation, and only some of the parties are the appellants, so that the judgment or order becomes final between the other parties, then if the Court of Appeal is of the view that the judgment or order appealed against should be reversed, the Court of Appeal shall have power to rule that its judgment or order takes effect between all parties in the case in the court of first instance as well.
(2) If an intervener has been permitted to enter the case in place of a party, the judgment of the Court of Appeal shall also be binding on that party.
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 245 fixes the personal reach of an appellate decision. The default is that only those who appealed are affected, which protects a party who chose not to appeal from being worse off. Item (1) creates a fairness exception for indivisible obligations: where reversing the judgment logically must benefit all, the court may extend the effect to co-parties who did not appeal, so that inconsistent outcomes are avoided. Item (2) binds a party for whom an intervener substituted. Read with Sections 246 and 252, the same principle lets the Supreme Court extend a favourable ruling to co-defendants who did not dika.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
If you are one of several co-defendants sued on an obligation that cannot be split, such as joint liability under one debt, a win by another defendant on appeal or dika can benefit you even if you did not appeal yourself. The reverse is also true: choosing not to appeal does not always leave you exposed, but you should never rely on this without checking, because the exception is narrow. A lawyer handling debt and joint-liability disputes can tell you whether the indivisible-obligation rule applies to your case.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1279/2568 (2025)
Where a matter concerns an indivisible obligation and public order, the court may raise it on its own motion and extend a favourable ruling to co-parties who did not dika, under Section 245(1) with Sections 246 and 252.
The plaintiff had no power to enforce against the second defendant, a public-order point concerning an indivisible obligation. The Supreme Court raised it on its own motion and extended the ruling to withdraw enforcement in favour of the third and fourth defendants, who had not filed a dika, under Section 245(1) with Sections 246 and 252.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3524/2567 (2024)
Where a co-defendant must perform the same obligation as another, so that the obligation is indivisible, the court may make its judgment take effect in favour of a co-defendant who did not dika, under Section 245(1) with Section 252.
The second defendant had to perform the same obligation as the first defendant, an indivisible obligation, so the second defendant was not liable to the plaintiff either. The Supreme Court held the ruling could take effect in favour of the second defendant even though that defendant had not filed a dika, under Section 245(1) with Section 252.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4980/2567 (2024)
A co-debtor by judgment who owes the same indivisible obligation is not liable where the other is not, and the court may extend that relief to the co-defendant who did not dika, under Section 245(1) with Section 252.
Because the second defendant owed the same indivisible obligation as the first defendant, it was not liable to the plaintiff either. The Supreme Court held the judgment could take effect in favour of the second defendant who had not dika'd, under Section 245(1) with Section 252.
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
Does an appeal judgment bind a defendant who did not appeal?
As a rule no, under Section 245 it binds only the appealing parties. But for an indivisible obligation, a reversal can be extended to a co-party who did not appeal.
What is an indivisible obligation for this purpose?
It is an obligation that cannot be split among the parties, such as joint liability on a single debt, where a decision for one defendant must logically apply to the others.
Does the Supreme Court apply the same rule?
Yes. Through Sections 246 and 252 the Supreme Court can extend a favourable ruling on an indivisible obligation to co-defendants who did not dika.