Section 199 ter — Right to apply for new trial
Statutory text (Thai original)
จำเลยซึ่งศาลมีคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งชี้ขาดให้แพ้คดีโดยขาดนัดยื่นคำให้การ ถ้ามิได้ยื่นอุทธรณ์คำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งนั้น จำเลยนั้นอาจมีคำขอให้พิจารณาคดีใหม่ได้ เว้นแต่
(๑) ศาลเคยมีคำสั่งให้พิจารณาคดีนั้นใหม่มาครั้งหนึ่งแล้ว
(๒) คำขอให้พิจารณาคดีใหม่นั้นต้องห้ามตามกฎหมาย
English translation
A defendant against whom the court has rendered a judgment or an order adjudicating him the losing party by default of answer may, if he has not appealed against that judgment or order, apply for a new trial, except:
(1) where the court has already ordered a new trial of that case once; or
(2) where the application for a new trial is prohibited by law.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 199 ter is the post-judgment remedy for a defendant who lost by default of answer: an application for a new trial. It is an alternative to appeal, not an addition, since it is available only to a defendant who has not appealed the default judgment. Two bars apply: the case must not already have had one court-ordered new trial, and the application must not be otherwise prohibited by law. This section works with Section 199 quater, which sets the deadline and required contents of the application, and Section 199 quinque, which governs how the court decides it and the effect of granting it. It is distinct from a motion under Section 27 to set aside irregular proceedings, which serves a different purpose and has its own time limit.
Why this matters in practice
If a default judgment has been entered against you, you generally must choose one route: appeal, or apply for a new trial, not both. A new trial can be the better option when you never got a fair chance to present a defense, but it is a one-time remedy, so make it count. Do not confuse it with a motion to set aside irregular procedure under Section 27, which has a shorter deadline. Because the choice and timing are technical, take legal advice quickly.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 13602/2558 (2015)
Where the court finds the default was intentional but there is another sufficient reason, it may still order a new trial under Section 199 ter, showing that the remedy turns on the court's assessment of the grounds and the interests of justice.
After an inquiry the trial court found the defendant had intentionally defaulted, but because the dispute arose from a construction contract already decided by arbitration, it found another sufficient reason and granted a new trial under Section 199 ter, then struck the case off so the parties could proceed through arbitration.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1186/2558 (2015)
A motion to set aside irregular proceedings for defective service under Section 27 is distinct from an application for a new trial under Sections 199 ter, quater and quinque; a party who mislabels the former as the latter is still bound by the Section 27 eight-day time limit.
The defendant framed its motion as one under Sections 199 ter, quater and quinque, but the Supreme Court held it was in substance a motion to set aside irregular proceedings for defective service under Section 27. Filed more than eight days after the defendant learned of the ground, it was out of time and failed.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1815/2559 (2016)
A defendant in default of answer may apply for a new trial under Section 199 ter within fifteen days from service of the writ of execution under Section 199 quater paragraph one, but where the court has set a means of serving the writ, that arrangement must first be complied with.
The Supreme Court explained that under Section 199 ter and Section 199 quater paragraph one, the fifteen-day period to apply for a new trial runs from service of the writ of execution, and where service is by posting, it takes effect after the fifteen-day posting period has passed.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Can a defendant who lost by default ask for a new trial?
Yes. Under Section 199 ter, a defendant who lost by default of answer and did not appeal the judgment may apply for a new trial, unless the court already granted one or the law prohibits the request.
Can a defendant both appeal and apply for a new trial?
No. A new trial under Section 199 ter is available only to a defendant who has not appealed the default judgment, so the two are alternatives.
How many times can a new trial be granted?
Only once. Under Section 199 ter (1), a further application is barred where the court has already ordered a new trial of the case once.