Article 64: Proxy for limited procedural acts

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2204/2564 (2021)

   A proxy under section 64 empowers the holder only to perform the enumerated procedural acts; it does not extend to substantive steps that an attorney must do personally, such as filing a motion to extend the time for a further appeal.

   A lawyer's clerk, given a proxy, filed a motion to extend the time for a further appeal on the defendants' behalf. The Supreme Court held, as a matter of public order that it could raise on its own, that a proxy under section 64 covers only the listed acts and not such a substantive step, so the motion was ineffective and did not extend the time.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 13316/2558 (2015)

   Section 64 lets a party or attorney appoint a person by proxy to perform only the specified acts, namely fixing or attending hearing dates, hearing the court's orders and endorsing acknowledgment, and receiving copies of pleadings under sections 71 and 72.

   In addressing a motion to extend the time to pay court fees, the Supreme Court set out the acts a proxy may perform under section 64, distinguishing them from steps that the party or attorney must take, and confirming that the proxy is confined to those enumerated matters.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3588/2564 (2021)

   Where a mandatary who is not an advocate drafts and signs an answer to an appeal, contrary to section 33 of the Lawyers Act, the pleading is defective in form and the defect can be cured: the trial court has power to order it corrected under section 18, and dismissing the pleading outright is wrong.

   The trial court refused the defendant's answer to the appeal, and the Court of Appeal Region 9 dismissed the defendant's appeal, because S., who drafted them, was not shown to be an advocate and so was forbidden to draft them under section 33 of the Lawyers Act. The Supreme Court held that both were defective only in form and could be cured: the trial court had power to order the answer corrected under section 18 with Criminal Procedure Code section 15, and the appeal could have been corrected under Criminal Procedure Code section 161 paragraph one. Dismissing the appeal outright was therefore wrong. Since the defendant had by then appointed S. as advocate with authority to appeal, nothing further was needed, and the Court ordered the trial court to accept the answer and send the file back for the appeal to be heard.

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