Section 18: Court screening of pleadings

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1088/2566 (2023)

   A court may dismiss a petition at the screening stage under Section 18, without first making an order accepting it, where examination shows it should not proceed.

   The Central Bankruptcy Court, on examining the petitioners' business rehabilitation petition, dismissed it. The Supreme Court held the court had power to dismiss the petition at the examination stage under Section 18, applied with the third paragraph of Section 172 and the Bankruptcy Court Act, without needing to accept the petition first.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3116/2567 (2024)

   A grievance or appeal procedure laid down by ministerial regulation, which gives an employee the option of complaining to an internal committee, is not a mandatory step to be completed before suing in the Labour Court. Failure to use it therefore cannot be relied on under section 18 paragraph three to deprive the plaintiff of standing.

   The Ministerial Regulation on the protection of work and remuneration of staff in private higher education institutions B.E. 2549 gives staff the option of appealing or complaining to the institution's protection committee; it does not require them to do so in every case, nor before suing in the Labour Court. It could not therefore be used to cut off the plaintiff's claim for severance pay and pay in lieu of notice, and no law required any prior step for the claims for breach of the employment contract or unfair dismissal. The regulation does require a staff member who chooses one route to pursue it to the end, and by suing on 17 December 2563 the plaintiff had chosen the court and waived the internal appeal, so his later appeal to the committee did not remove the standing he already had.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3748/2565 (2022)

   An order revoking the acceptance of a petition because the court fee was short-paid, and permitting a fresh petition to be filed, is not an order refusing or returning a pleading under the last paragraph of section 18 from which an appeal lies under section 228. It is an interlocutory order, and an appeal against it is barred by section 226(1) unless an objection has first been recorded.

   Although the applicant's motion asked that his own portion of the land be set aside before the auction, in substance it sought the release of the part he possessed as his own, which is a third-party claim under section 323 paragraph one and therefore a plaint under section 1(3). Filing it put the third-party claim before the court without any need for the court to accept it first. The trial court's order revoking its acceptance for a short-paid fee and permitting a fresh petition therefore left the original motion on foot; it was not an order refusing or returning a pleading under the last paragraph of section 18 from which an appeal lies, but an interlocutory order barred from appeal by section 226(1).

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