Article 46: langue thaïlandaise, traductions, interprètes

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4725/2565 (2022)

   A party may submit foreign-language documents to the court without always providing a Thai translation; a translation is required only if the court so orders under section 46 paragraph three, and such documents may otherwise be admitted as evidence.

   The plaintiff submitted documents in a foreign language without a Thai translation. The Supreme Court held that a party may submit foreign-language documentary evidence without always translating it into Thai, except where the court orders a translation under section 46 paragraph three, applied through section 17 of the Act on Establishment of and Procedure for Tax Courts. The documents could therefore be admitted as the plaintiff's evidence.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 5554/2561 (2018)

   Foreign-language documents need not always be translated in full; where the essential parts are translated and the documents are used together with other evidence, the court may admit them under section 46 paragraph three.

   Documents recording deposits and withdrawals were partly in English but carried translations of their essential parts, namely the transaction dates, effective dates, withdrawals, deposits, and balances. The Supreme Court reiterated that submitting foreign-language documents to the court does not always require a full Thai translation unless the court orders one under section 46 paragraph three. As the documents were only part of the evidence and their essential parts were translated sufficiently for the court to find the facts, they could be admitted as the plaintiff's evidence.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 7189/2562 (2019)

   An English-language document filed without a translation may still be weighed with the other evidence. Where the document is an audit report of a foreign training institute concerning the employer's business and management, and the employer is entitled to withhold that information under its agreement with the institute, sending it to a personal email account is a disclosure of the employer's confidential information.

   The plaintiff, a training instructor, sent the audit report of a United Kingdom offshore petroleum training organisation, which concerned the defendant's business and the management of its training centre, from the defendant's email to his own. The defendant was entitled to withhold that information under its agreement with the institute, which forbade reproduction or disclosure, and the plaintiff had agreed to protect the defendant's confidential information. The Supreme Court held that sending it to his personal account made it easy to pass on or remove without the defendant's knowledge, which was a dishonest performance of his duties and an unauthorised disclosure of the defendant's secrets. It was a wilful act causing the employer loss and a serious breach of work discipline, so the defendant could dismiss him without severance pay under sections 119(2) and (4) of the Labour Protection Act, without notice under Civil and Commercial Code section 583, and the dismissal was not unfair.

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