Article 77 — Service at another place
Texte légal (original thaï)
การส่งคำคู่ความหรือเอกสารอื่นใดโดยเจ้าพนักงานศาลไปยังที่อื่นนอกจากภูมิลำเนา หรือสำนักทำการงานของคู่ความหรือของบุคคลซึ่งระบุไว้ในคำคู่ความ หรือเอกสารนั้น ให้ถือว่าเป็นการถูกต้องตามกฎหมาย เมื่อ
(๑) คู่ความหรือบุคคลนั้นยอมรับคำคู่ความหรือเอกสารนั้นไว้ หรือ
(๒) การส่งคำคู่ความหรือเอกสารนั้นได้กระทำในศาล
traduction anglaise
The service of a pleading or any other document by a court officer at a place other than the domicile or place of business of the party or of the person named in the pleading or document shall be regarded as lawful when:
(1) that party or person accepts the pleading or document; or
(2) the service of the pleading or document is made in court.
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 77 permits service away from the domicile or place of business, but only on two footings: the recipient accepts it, or it is served in court. This is the counterpart to Section 74, which fixes the address as the ordinary place of service; Section 77 relaxes the location but tightens the conditions, because a person served elsewhere has not chosen to be reachable there. It cannot be used to justify posting a notice at an address that is neither the domicile nor a place of business, and attempts to do so are struck down together with Section 79 as improper substituted service.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
This section is a safety valve, not a loophole. Serving a defendant at a random third address only works if they actually take the document there, or the service happens in court; posting it at such a place is invalid. If you are contesting service, check whether the place used was really your domicile or place of business, because service at another address without acceptance can be set aside. Where service is disputed, a avocat thaïlandais agréé can review the return of service for defects.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5845/2558 (2015)
Posting a notice and copy of a petition at a household registration address, rather than serving them at the person's special designated domicile, is not lawful under Sections 74(2), 77, and 79, and the person cannot be held to know the hearing date.
The opposing party posted the hearing notice and copy of its petition at the household registration address where the claimant was listed, not at the claimant's special designated domicile. The court held the posting improper under Sections 74(2), 77, and 79, so the claimant was not shown to know the hearing, and set aside the irregular proceedings under Section 27.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 894/2538 (1995)
Section 77 addresses service by a court officer at another place or a place of business; serving at the defendant's place of business as shown in the file does not by itself prove the officer knew the defendant was not at the plaint address, and may simply reflect convenience.
The defendant argued that earlier service at his place of business showed the officer knew he did not live at the plaint address. The court, applying Section 77 on service at another place, held this did not prove such knowledge and could merely reflect that serving at the place of business was more convenient, especially as the defendant worked as a lawyer.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 7233/2537 (1994)
Where an address is neither the defendant's domicile nor place of business, posting the notice there is unlawful under Sections 77 and 79, and a third party's statement that the defendant lived there does not bind the defendant, since a non party has no authority to make such a declaration.
The officer posted the notice of the appellate judgment date at an address that did not appear in the defendant's household registration and was not his domicile or place of business. The court held the posting unlawful under Sections 77 and 79, and a non party's statement that the defendant lived there did not bind him, so reading the judgment without his knowledge was improper.
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 a document be served away from my home or office?
Yes, but only under Section 77 if you accept the document at that other place, or the service is made in court. Otherwise service must be at your domicile or place of business.
Is posting a notice at a random address valid service?
No. Section 77 does not authorize posting at a place that is neither your domicile nor place of business. Such posting is typically struck down together with Section 79 as improper service.