Section 420: General principle of tort liability

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1808/2561 (2018)

   Concealing a material defect (expropriation) when selling property is a wrongful act that violates the buyer's protected rights as a consumer, rendering the seller liable under section 420.

   A developer sold land and buildings to consumers without disclosing that part of the property had been expropriated. The Court held this constituted a wrongful act under section 420: concealing material information about the property being sold violated the consumers' rights as buyers and caused them actual damage, entitling them to compensation.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4893/2558 (2015) ★ Landmark

   The constitutionally protected right to privacy is a 'right' under section 420; publishing intimate images without consent is a wrongful act regardless of press freedom.

   Media defendants published intimate images of two private individuals taken without consent. The Court held that consensual sexual activity in a private setting is a constitutionally protected privacy right. Publishing such images unlawfully injured the subjects' constitutional right to privacy, a 'right' within the meaning of section 420, and the defendants were liable in tort regardless of their freedom of expression as media.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 5374/2561 (2018)

   A developer's boundary wall in an allocated-land project can be a public utility under sections 4 and 43 of the Land Allocation Act B.E. 2543 even where it is not named in the allocation application. A buyer who interferes with it so that the benefit of the servient property is reduced commits a wrongful act under section 420 and must compensate the developer, and the court may also order him to refrain from doing so again under section 213 paragraph two.

   The plaintiff developer built a three-metre concrete wall marking the boundary of its commercial-building project so that everyone entered and left by the roads it had designated, where it kept guards and closed-circuit cameras. The Supreme Court held the wall was a facility provided for the buyers to use in common and so a public utility of the allocated land, even though it was not listed in the allocation application. It was the defendant, a buyer, who committed the wrongful act by interfering with the wall and reducing the benefit of the servient property, so he was liable to compensate the plaintiff under section 420 and was restrained from repeating it. The Court of Appeal Region 1 was affirmed.

   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.