Article 65: Attorney withdrawing from a case

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3304/2543 (2000)

   An attorney applying to withdraw under section 65 paragraph one must satisfy the court that he has notified the party. Where nothing shows that the party signed to acknowledge the withdrawal, that requirement is not met, and it is proper for the court to hold the application over rather than allow it at once. Holding it over is not a refusal: the court may grant the withdrawal later, once the party's acknowledgement appears on the record.

   An attorney applied to withdraw as the plaintiff's counsel, saying only that the plaintiff would appoint a new attorney and had been informed. Nothing showed that the plaintiff had signed to acknowledge the withdrawal, so the requirement in section 65 paragraph one, applied through section 17 of the Act establishing the Tax Court and its procedure B.E. 2528, was not shown to be satisfied. The Supreme Court held that it was proper for the Tax Court not to allow the withdrawal at once but to hold the application over to the settlement of issues hearing. The withdrawal was in fact allowed later, once the plaintiff's acknowledgement appeared, so the order was a deferral and not a refusal.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 6573/2541 (1998)

   An attorney applying to withdraw must satisfy the court that he has notified the party, unless the party cannot be found. Where the application does not show that the party was notified and it is not a case of the party being untraceable, the court properly refuses the withdrawal under section 65 paragraph one. Whether to close the taking of evidence is a separate question decided on its own grounds, such as a party's repeated failure to attend.

   The defendant's attorney applied to withdraw. The application did not show that the defendant had been notified, and it was not a case in which the defendant could not be found, so the Supreme Court held that the trial court's refusal to allow the withdrawal was correct under section 65 paragraph one. The order closing the taking of evidence rested on separate grounds: the trial court had given the defendant three hearing dates and had warned throughout against further postponement, the defendant was his own only witness and could have finished in a single sitting, and the attorney's own application showed that the defendant knew the hearing dates and did not attend. The two points were decided independently of each other.

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