Section 66 — Inquiry into a representative's authority
Statutory text (Thai original)
ผู้ใดอ้างว่าเป็นผู้แทนโดยชอบธรรมของตัวความหรือเป็นผู้แทนของนิติบุคคล เมื่อศาลเห็นสมควรหรือเมื่อคู่ความฝ่ายที่เกี่ยวข้องยื่นคำขอ โดยทำเป็นคำร้องในขณะที่ยื่นคำฟ้องหรือคำให้การ ศาลจะทำการสอบสวนถึงอำนาจของผู้นั้นก็ได้ และถ้าเป็นที่พอใจว่าผู้นั้นไม่มีอำนาจ หรืออำนาจของผู้นั้นบกพร่อง ศาลมีอำนาจยกฟ้องคดีนั้นเสีย หรือมีคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งอย่างอื่นได้ตามที่เห็นสมควร เพื่อประโยชน์แห่งความยุติธรรม
English translation
Where a person claims to be the lawful representative of a party or the representative of a juristic person, the court may, when it thinks fit or when the party concerned files an application in the form of a motion at the time of filing the plaint or the answer, conduct an inquiry into the authority of that person; and if it is satisfied that the person has no authority, or that the person's authority is defective, the court has power to dismiss the case, or to give any other judgment or order as it thinks fit, in the interest of justice.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 66 gives the court a checking power over representation. A person often litigates not for themselves but as the lawful representative of an incapacitated party or as the representative of a juristic person, and this section lets the court test that authority, either on its own motion or on a party's motion made with the plaint or answer. If the court finds no authority or a defective authority, it may dismiss the case or make another order in the interest of justice. In practice the courts favour cure over dismissal: a defect in a juristic person's authority, such as a letter of appointment signed by the wrong signatory, is commonly ordered corrected, for example by appointing a temporary representative under the Civil and Commercial Code and redoing the appointment. The section is procedural, so a question over a representative's authority is raised by this inquiry, not by attacking the plaint as defective under section 172.
Why this matters in practice
This matters most when a company or an incapacitated person is involved. If you are suing or defending through a representative, make sure the authority is clean: for a company, check the affidavit of registration and that the right director or directors sign in the required combination, because a defect can trigger an inquiry. If you doubt the other side's representative, raise it by motion with your plaint or answer, that is the proper route, rather than attacking the whole complaint. Reassuringly, a defect is usually curable rather than fatal, so the court will often order it fixed. To avoid an inquiry derailing your case, verify corporate authority before filing; a consultation with a Thai lawyer can confirm who must sign for a juristic person.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 7030/2539 (1996)
Under section 66 the court, including an appellate court acting on its own, may order a defect in the authority of a juristic person's representative to be cured, for example by having a temporary representative appointed under CCC section 73 and a fresh attorney appointment made.
The attorney appointment was signed by only one managing partner, contrary to the requirement that he sign jointly with another and affix the firm's seal, which made the juristic person's authority to litigate defective. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court could invoke section 66 to have the trial court order the defect cured, by appointing a temporary representative under CCC section 73 and preparing a fresh attorney appointment, in the interest of justice.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 7272/2539 (1996)
A dispute over whether a person has authority to act for an incompetent party is resolved by the court's inquiry into authority under section 66 on the opposing party's motion; it does not make the plaint itself defective under section 172 paragraph two.
The defendant questioned whether the person suing on behalf of the incompetent plaintiff, said to be the plaintiff's lawful father, actually had authority. The Supreme Court held that this was a matter for an inquiry into authority under section 66, to be raised by the defendant's motion during trial, and did not render the plaint defective under section 172 paragraph two.
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 the court check whether someone really represents a company in a case?
Yes. Under section 66, the court may inquire into the authority of a person claiming to be a party's lawful representative or a juristic person's representative, on its own or on a party's motion filed with the plaint or answer, and may dismiss the case if there is no authority.
Is a defect in a representative's authority fatal to the case?
Not usually. Although section 66 lets the court dismiss where there is no authority, in practice the courts often order a defect cured, for example by appointing a temporary representative and redoing the attorney appointment, in the interest of justice.