Section 24: Preliminary ruling on a question of law

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4043/2567 (2024)

   Applying for the appointment of an estate administrator, and objecting to such an appointment, are matters personal to each heir or interested person. The heirs of a deceased applicant therefore cannot substitute themselves as a party in her place. Where the applicant dies while her final appeal is pending there is no longer any purpose in hearing it, and the Supreme Court strikes her case from the docket under section 132(3).

   An objector applied to remove the two administrators of an estate and to be appointed in their place. The first petitioner asked the first court to rule as a preliminary point of law that the objector was not an interested person; the first court thought fit to give a preliminary ruling under section 24, dispensed with the inquiry and dismissed the objection. The Court of Appeal reversed that, directing the first court to accept the objection and hold an inquiry. The first petitioner appealed by leave and died while the appeal was pending, and her heirs applied to take her place. The Supreme Court held that applying for or objecting to the appointment of an administrator is personal to each heir or interested person, so her heirs could not substitute as a party, and that with her death there was no longer any purpose in hearing her appeal. It struck her case from the docket under section 132(3) and returned the appeal fee, without reaching the merits of the first court preliminary ruling.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 5669/2567 (2024)

   A Prime Minister's Office regulation providing a route for settling disputes between State agencies is an administrative tool, not a provision of law affecting or restricting the right to sue, and nothing in it forbids one State agency from suing another. Failing to use it therefore does not deprive a State agency of standing, and a preliminary ruling under section 24 to the contrary is wrong.

   Clauses 11 and 12 of the Prime Minister's Office Regulation on the settlement of disputes between State agencies B.E. 2561 are a route the Cabinet laid down so that such disputes may be ended without litigation; they are not a provision of law bearing on or restricting the right to sue, and nothing in the regulation forbids State agencies from suing one another. Failing to follow them therefore does not extinguish the right to sue, since anyone whose civil rights are disputed may bring the matter to a civil court of competent jurisdiction under section 55. The Supreme Court accordingly reversed the trial court's preliminary ruling under section 24 that the plaintiff had no standing.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 721/2565 (2022)

   A party may move under Section 24 for a preliminary ruling on whether an intervenor has the right to file an intervention in the case, allowing the court to resolve that legal question before proceeding.

   During the trial, the petitioner moved under Section 24 for a preliminary ruling on whether the intervenor had the right to file an intervention in the case. The trial court dismissed the intervenor's petition, showing Section 24 applied to test the intervenor's standing to join.

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