Section 145 — Binding effect of a judgment on parties
Statutory text (Thai original)
ภายใต้บังคับบทบัญญัติแห่งประมวลกฎหมายนี้ว่าด้วยการอุทธรณ์ฎีกา และการพิจารณาใหม่ คำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งใด ๆ ให้ถือว่าผูกพันคู่ความในกระบวนพิจารณาของศาลที่พิพากษาหรือมีคำสั่ง นับตั้งแต่วันที่ได้พิพากษาหรือมีคำสั่ง จนถึงวันที่คำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งนั้นได้ถูกเปลี่ยนแปลง แก้ไข กลับหรืองดเสีย ถ้าหากมีถึงแม้ศาลจะได้กล่าวไว้โดยทั่วไปว่าให้ใช้คำพิพากษาบังคับแก่บุคคลภายนอกซึ่งมิได้เป็นคู่ความในกระบวนพิจารณาของศาลด้วยก็ดี คำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งนั้นย่อมไม่ผูกพันบุคคลภายนอก เว้นแต่ที่บัญญัติไว้ในมาตรา ๑๔๒
(๑) มาตรา ๒๔๕ และมาตรา ๓๖๖ และในข้อต่อไปนี้
(๑) คำพิพากษาเกี่ยวด้วยฐานะหรือความสามารถของบุคคล หรือคำพิพากษาสั่งให้เลิกนิติบุคคล หรือคำสั่งเรื่องล้มละลายเหล่านี้ บุคคลภายนอกจะยกขึ้นอ้างอิงหรือจะใช้ยันแก่บุคคลภายนอกก็ได้
(๒) คำพิพากษาที่วินิจฉัยถึงกรรมสิทธิ์แห่งทรัพย์สินใด ๆ เป็นคุณแก่คู่ความฝ่ายใดฝ่ายหนึ่งอาจใช้ยันแก่บุคคลภายนอกได้ เว้นแต่บุคคลภายนอกนั้นจะพิสูจน์ได้ว่าตนมีสิทธิดีกว่า
English translation
Subject to the provisions of this Code on appeal, further appeal, and new trial, any judgment or order shall be deemed to bind the parties to the proceedings of the court that gave the judgment or made the order, from the date it was given or made until the date the judgment or order is changed, amended, reversed, or set aside, if that occurs. Even though the court has stated in general terms that the judgment is to be enforced against a third person who was not a party to the proceedings, that judgment or order does not bind the third person, except as provided in Section 142, Section 245, and Section 366, and in the following cases:
(1) A judgment concerning the status or capacity of a person, or a judgment ordering the dissolution of a juristic person, or an order in bankruptcy: a third person may cite or invoke these against, and they may be used against, third persons.
(2) A judgment deciding the ownership of any property in favor of one of the parties may be used against a third person, except where the third person can prove that he has a better right.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 145 states the binding effect of judgments. As between the parties, a judgment binds from the day it is given until it is changed, amended, reversed, or set aside, which is the doctrinal basis for treating a final judgment as conclusive between them. The general rule is that a judgment does not bind third persons, even if the court purported to make it enforceable against outsiders, subject to the cross-referenced provisions and to two categories: judgments on status, capacity, dissolution of a juristic person, or bankruptcy, which have effect toward third persons; and ownership judgments, which may be used against a third person unless that person proves a better right. The section works closely with Section 148 on res judicata, which bars the same parties from relitigating a decided matter.
Why this matters in practice
This section tells you who is actually bound by a judgment: the parties are bound, but someone who was not a party to the case usually is not, even if the judgment says it applies to outsiders. That protects a person who was not in court, but it also means winning against one party does not automatically settle rights against a stranger who claims a better title. Ownership judgments can be used against third persons unless they prove a stronger right, so before relying on a judgment against someone new, check whether they were a party. If a judgment from earlier litigation affects your position, get advice on whether it binds you, for example in a consultation with a Thai lawyer.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4984/2568 (2025)
Where the nature of the claim, the relief sought, and the grounds relied on differ from an earlier case, the court may find facts differently, and it is not barred by the binding effect of the earlier judgment under Section 145.
Because the claim, relief, and grounds in this case differed from the earlier case, the Supreme Court held it could find facts differently and was not barred under Section 145 read with the Consumer Case Procedure Act. On the stronger evidence, it found the plaintiff had paid in full and was entitled to transfer of the land.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3817/2568 (2025)
A final judgment in an earlier case binds the parties to it under Section 145 paragraph one, so a party is taken to have known the facts conclusively established in that case.
An earlier final civil judgment established that the plaintiff had the right of possession of the disputed land. The court held that judgment bound the plaintiff and the first defendant as parties under Section 145 paragraph one, which showed the defendants knew the plaintiff was the lawful possessor when they interfered with the land.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1282/2568 (2025)
The binding effect of a judgment on a party under Section 145 paragraph one arises where that party was duly summoned and defaulted, but not in a non-contentious case begun by petition where there is no defendant in default.
The court explained that the binding effect under Section 145 paragraph one would arise if a party duly summoned failed to file a defense and so was in default. But the earlier case was a non-contentious matter begun by petition under Section 188, involving only the petitioner, so that default-based binding effect did not arise.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Who is bound by a court judgment?
Under Section 145 the parties are bound from the date of judgment until it is changed or reversed. A third person who was not a party is generally not bound, even if the judgment says it applies to outsiders.
Can a judgment be used against someone who was not in the case?
Only in specific cases under Section 145, such as judgments on status or capacity, dissolution or bankruptcy, and ownership rulings, which a third person may resist by proving a better right.