Section 150: Acts contrary to public order or good morals are void

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 8921/2559 (2016) ★ Landmark

   An agreement to withdraw a prosecution for a non-compoundable public offence is contrary to public order and is void under section 150; it cannot be enforced even if the other party has performed their obligations.

   The plaintiff had agreed in a memorandum to withdraw a criminal complaint against a public official in exchange for certain undertakings. The Court held that because the offence was a public offence not subject to private settlement, the part of the agreement requiring withdrawal of the complaint was contrary to public order and good morals and was therefore void under section 150: even if the defendant had fully performed his side of the agreement, the void term could not be enforced against the plaintiff.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1179/2561 (2018)

   A foreigner's acquisition of land through a Thai nominee is prohibited by Land Code section 86, but the transaction is not simply void and without any effect: the acquirer still takes the consequences fixed by Land Code section 94, namely disposal of the land within the time set by the Director-General of the Land Department, and disposal by the Director-General if that time passes.

   The plaintiff, a foreign national, had acquired land with the defendant holding title on his behalf. Whether a case falls within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Family Court is for the President of the Supreme Court to decide, and a party must raise it before the taking of evidence; the defendant raised it only at the Dika stage, so the Supreme Court could not refer it and had no power to rule that the nominee acquisition was prohibited under Land Code section 86. The Court added that such an acquisition is not wholly without effect in any event, since the acquirer still takes the consequences of Land Code section 94.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 5696/2558 (2015)

   A transfer that expressly breaches a regulatory prohibition is void under section 150, allowing the administrator to recover the asset directly rather than through the fraudulent-transfer route under section 237.

   A transfer of land by an insolvent insurance company to a related party was alleged to violate prohibitions in the Non-Life Insurance Act. The Court accepted the argument that if the transfer contravened an express statutory prohibition it would be void under section 150, enabling the administrator to seek recovery of the property rather than merely a fraudulent-transfer remedy under section 237.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

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