Article 63 — Appointing an agent to receive court money
Texte légal (original thaï)
บทบัญญัติแห่งมาตราก่อนนี้ไม่ตัดสิทธิตัวความในอันที่จะตั้งแต่งผู้แทนหรือทนายความโดยทำเป็นหนังสือยื่นต่อศาลเพื่อให้รับเงินหรือทรัพย์สินซึ่งได้ชำระไว้ในศาลหรือวางไว้ยังศาลเป็นเงินค่าธรรมเนียมหรืออย่างอื่นและศาลได้สั่งให้จ่ายคืน หรือส่งมอบให้แก่ตัวความฝ่ายนั้น แต่ถ้าศาลนั้นมีความสงสัยในความสามารถหรือตัวบุคคลผู้แทน หรือทนายความซึ่งได้รับตั้งแต่งดังกล่าวข้างต้น ศาลมีอำนาจที่จะสั่งให้ตัวความหรือทนายความหรือทั้งสองคนให้มาศาลโดยตนเองได้
traduction anglaise
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.
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 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.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
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 consultation en ligne avec un avocat thaïlandais can prepare it correctly.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 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.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 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.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 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.
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
Can I authorise someone else to collect money the court ordered refunded to me?
Yes. Under section 63, you may appoint a representative or attorney, by a written instrument filed with the court, to receive money or property the court has ordered refunded or delivered. The court may require personal appearance if it doubts the appointee's capacity or identity.
Can the person I appoint to collect court money pass that job to someone else?
Generally no. Case law under section 63 holds that a person merely authorised to receive money from the court cannot sub-delegate that authority to another without the principal's consent, as that would appoint an unauthorised sub-agent.