Section 193/30: General prescription period, ten years

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 13283/2558 (2015)

   Claims under a credit facility lacking a specific limitation period are governed by the ten-year general prescription of section 193/30, distinct from instalment-loan claims which attract the five-year period under section 193/33(2).

   A creditor held claims under both a credit facility agreement and a loan agreement. The Court held that claims under the credit facility were not specifically provided for in any statute and therefore attracted the ten-year prescription under section 193/30, while claims under the loan agreement constituted instalments of principal and fell under the five-year period in section 193/33(2).

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 13963/2558 (2015)

   Where a breach of employment contract claim has no specific limitation period, the ten-year prescription in section 193/30 applies even if the concurrent tort claim is already time-barred.

   An employer sued a former employee for dishonest conduct both in tort and for breach of the employment contract. The Court held that while the tort claim had become time-barred (more than one year having passed since the employer knew of the act and the wrongdoer), the contract claim remained alive because breach of an employment contract has no specific prescription period and therefore falls under the ten-year general period of section 193/30.

   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.