Section 99: Court inspection and appointing experts

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 803/2547 (2004)

   Whether to order an inspection or site view under Section 99 paragraph one is within the court's discretion, and the court may decline where the view would not benefit the case or would cause delay.

   The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's refusal to conduct a site view of the disputed building, holding that ordering an inspection under Section 99 paragraph one is a matter for the court's discretion and the view here would only cause delay.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1942/2542 (1999)

   Where the court has allowed a document to be examined by an expert at a party's own request and the court's expert has examined it and given a detailed and clear opinion, the mere fact that the opinion does not suit that party is no sufficient reason to have another expert examine the document again: that would be a repeat examination with no different result, extravagant and dilatory.

   After the evidence had been taken, the plaintiff asked that the disputed loan agreement be sent to the police forensic division to establish whether the text in black ink and the text in blue ink were in the same hand, and the trial court allowed it. The court's expert examined the document and reported that they were not. The Supreme Court held that as the examination had been allowed at the plaintiff's own request and the expert had reported in detail and clearly, the fact that the opinion did not suit the plaintiff was no reason to have another expert examine the document again, and the trial court rightly dismissed that motion. On the merits the borrowing was only 40,000 baht, the figures in blue ink having been added without the defendant's knowledge, so the agreement was a forged document and the loan had no written evidence.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 986/2541 (1998)

   Where a person entered on the court's register of experts is summoned by the court, that person is impliedly deemed a court-appointed expert under Section 99, and no separate appointment order is required.

   The Supreme Court held that once the court had summoned a registered expert, he was impliedly a court-appointed expert under Section 99, so no duplicate appointment order was needed and his written opinion could stand.

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