Page 27 - ดุลพาห เล่ม3.indd

ดุลพาห

is within Japan . The notion of the place of tort comprises both the places where
53
the wrongful act was committed and where the damage incurred. However, this

provision explicitly excludes international jurisdiction over a case where a
wrongful act was committed in a foreign country, but its consequence in Japan was

not ordinarily foreseeable. This limitation aims to preserve predictability and fair
balance between the parties’ interests .
54

(3) Jurisdiction relating to immovable property

(a) The current state of Thai law

Section 4 bis of the CPC uses the situs of immovable property as a ground of
jurisdiction over disputes relating to immovable property. It provides that “a complaint

concerning any immovable property, right or interest regarding an immovable
property shall be submitted to the court in which such immovable property is located

within its jurisdiction, whether or not the defendant would have a domicile in
Thailand, or to the court in which the defendant has a domicile within its

jurisdiction.” Therefore, the plaintiff can file an action relating to immovable property
with the Thai courts if such property is located within Thailand or the defendant has

a domicile in Thailand.

(b) International comparison

Japanese law adopts a similar approach to Thai law. In addition to the general
jurisdiction based on the defendant’s domicile, Article 3-3 (xi) of the JCCP provides

that an action related to immoveable property may be filed with the Japanese courts
if the immoveable property is located within Japan. Furthermore, Article 3-5 (2)

specifically prescribes that an action related to land registration is subject to the

53. Article 3-3 (viii) of the JCCP provides that the following actions may be filed with the Japanese courts:
“an action for a tort: if the place where the tort occurred is within Japan (excluding if the
consequences of a wrongful act committed in a foreign country have arisen within Japan but it would
not ordinary have been possible to foresee those consequences arising within Japan.”
54. Nishitani, “International Jurisdiction of Japanese Courts,” 262.

16 เล่มที่ ๓ ปีที่ ๖๕