Article 63: Appointing an agent to receive court money
Statutory text (Thai original)
บทบัญญัติแห่งมาตราก่อนนี้ไม่ตัดสิทธิตัวความในอันที่จะตั้งแต่งผู้แทนหรือทนายความโดยทำเป็นหนังสือยื่นต่อศาลเพื่อให้รับเงินหรือทรัพย์สินซึ่งได้ชำระไว้ในศาลหรือวางไว้ยังศาลเป็นเงินค่าธรรมเนียมหรืออย่างอื่นและศาลได้สั่งให้จ่ายคืน หรือส่งมอบให้แก่ตัวความฝ่ายนั้น แต่ถ้าศาลนั้นมีความสงสัยในความสามารถหรือตัวบุคคลผู้แทน หรือทนายความซึ่งได้รับตั้งแต่งดังกล่าวข้างต้น ศาลมีอำนาจที่จะสั่งให้ตัวความหรือทนายความหรือทั้งสองคนให้มาศาลโดยตนเองได้
English translation
The provisions of the preceding section do not deprive a party of the right to appoint a representative or an attorney, by an instrument in writing filed with the court, to receive money or property that has been paid into court or deposited with the court as fees or otherwise and that the court has ordered to be refunded or delivered to that party. But if the court has doubts as to the capacity or the identity of the representative or attorney so appointed, the court has power to order the party or the attorney, or both, to appear before it in person.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 63 creates a distinct, narrow form of appointment. It preserves the party's right to appoint a representative or attorney, by a written instrument filed with the court, solely to receive money or property that the court has ordered refunded or delivered, for example fees paid into court or sums deposited. This is separate from the litigation appointment under sections 60 to 62 and from the case proxy under section 64, and the authority is limited to collection. As a safeguard against fraud or mistake, the court may, if it doubts the appointee's capacity or identity, require the party or the attorney, or both, to appear in person. The provision has generated case law on two points: what counts as receiving money from the court, and whether the appointee may sub-delegate that authority.
Why this matters in practice
Use a section 63 appointment when you cannot personally collect a refund or a deposited sum from the court, but keep it precise: the written instrument should identify the person and the money to be received, and be filed with the court. Be aware of two limits from the case law. First, a person merely authorised to receive money from the court generally cannot pass that authority to someone else without your consent. Second, money handed to your lawyer outside the court, such as a settlement installment paid in the courtroom, is not necessarily governed by this section. If a refund or deposit is due to you and you will be abroad, arrange a proper written authorisation in advance; an online consultation with a Thai lawyer can prepare it correctly.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1451/2512 (1969)
A mandatary authorised to receive money from the court under section 63 cannot sub-delegate that authority to another person without the principal's consent, as that would appoint a sub-agent without authorisation.
The mandatary had authority to sue and to receive money on the principal's behalf, but purported to authorise another person to receive the money from the court. Deciding by its full bench, the Supreme Court held that he could not do so without the principal's consent, because it would be an unauthorised sub-agency.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2622/2530 (1987)
Receiving a settlement installment paid to a party's attorney in the presence of the court is not the receipt of money from the court that section 63 governs, and it need not be in writing; such receipt binds the party.
When the plaintiff did not attend on the day of the compromise, the defendant paid the first installment to the plaintiff's attorney before the court. The Supreme Court held this was not receipt of money from the court under section 63, so it required no writing, and the plaintiff was treated as having authorised the attorney to receive it, so the payment bound the plaintiff as creditor.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1230/2508 (1965)
Section 63 empowers the court to inquire into the representative of a juristic person until satisfied; and a power of attorney to sue given in the name of a juristic person does not lapse merely because the individual who gave it dies.
The Supreme Court held that section 63 gives the court power to investigate a juristic person's representative until satisfied, and that a power of attorney to sue issued in the name of the juristic person is not invalidated by the death of the individual who granted it. The suit brought on that authority was therefore valid.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 5 Supreme Court decisions (1965 to 1987)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Decision 2622/2530 (1987)
- Decision 1230/2508 (1965)
- Decision 1271-1273/2508 (1965)
- Decision 1271/2508 (1965)
- Decision 1451/2512 (1969)
Cette liste est sélectionnée automatiquement, en privilégiant les jugements qui reposent sur cet article plutôt que sur ceux qui se contentent de le citer lors du prononcé de la peine. Elle n'a pas encore été examinée par le cabinet.
Calculé sur l'ensemble du corpus de 83 652 décisions de la Cour suprême du cabinet, de 1921 à 2026. Le décompte est exhaustif ; la plage d'années indiquée élimine les valeurs aberrantes rares afin de refléter la répartition réelle des citations. Ces chiffres sont calculés par nos soins et ne constituent pas des statistiques officielles de la Cour. Comment nous les comptons et ce que nous avons mesuré
Foire aux questions
Puis-je autoriser quelqu'un d'autre à percevoir l'argent que le tribunal a ordonné de me rembourser ?
Oui. Conformément à l'article 63, vous pouvez désigner un représentant ou un mandataire, par acte écrit déposé auprès du tribunal, pour recevoir les sommes ou les biens dont le remboursement ou la remise a été ordonné par le tribunal. Le tribunal peut exiger la comparution personnelle du mandataire s'il a des doutes quant à sa capacité ou son identité.
La personne que je désigne pour recouvrer les sommes dues par le tribunal peut-elle déléguer cette tâche à quelqu'un d'autre ?
En règle générale, non. La jurisprudence relative à l'article 63 établit qu'une personne simplement autorisée à recevoir de l'argent du tribunal ne peut pas sous-déléguer cette autorité à une autre sans le consentement du mandant, car cela reviendrait à nommer un sous-agent non autorisé.
Guides connexes sur ThaiLawOnline
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Civil Procedure Code, s. 63 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Civil Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 63. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-63/ (accessed 1 septembre 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.วิ.พ. มาตรา 63 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-63/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-63/"><p>The provisions of the preceding section do not deprive a party of the right to appoint a representative or an attorney, by an instrument in writing filed with the court, to receive money or property that has been paid into court or deposited with the…</p><footer>Civil Procedure Code, s. 63 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-63/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.