Page 29 - ดุลพาห เล่ม3.indd
P. 29

ดุลพาห




                     (b) International jurisdiction
                     Japanese courts have explicit international jurisdiction over a case where

            the defendant enters an appearance. Article 3-8 of the JCCP provides that “if the
            defendant presents an oral argument on the merits of the case or enters a statement

            in preparatory proceedings without entering the affirmative defense that the Japanese
            courts lack jurisdiction, the courts have jurisdiction.”


                     Similarly, the entry of an appearance by the defendant also serves as a
            jurisdictional basis for a court of a member state under the Brussels I (recast) unless

            the appearance was entered to contest the jurisdiction . Article 26 provides that
                                                                 56
            “apart from jurisdiction derived from other provisions of this Regulation, a court of a

            Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction.
            This rule shall not apply where the appearance was entered to contest the jurisdiction,

            or where another court has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 24.”


            4. Jurisdiction based on the nationality or domicile of the plaintiff,
            and the presence of the defendant’s property


                     (1) The current state of Thai law


                     As a general principle under Section 4 (1) of the CPC, the courts where the
            cause of action arises and the courts where the defendant has domicile have

            jurisdiction to adjudicate an action filed by the plaintiff. However, the 1991
            amendment to the CPC extended the jurisdiction of the court beyond the scope of

            general jurisdiction based on the domicile of the defendant. It also established a new
            jurisdictional ground based on the plaintiff’s nationality and domicile, enabling a

            plaintiff to sue a defendant domiciled abroad if the plaintiff has Thai nationality or
            is domiciled in Thailand . The policy objective of this amendment was to provide
                                    57
            better protection and easier access to justice for Thai citizens. Section 4’s first


            56. Hartley, “International Commercial Litigation,” 100.
            57. Ariyanuntaka, “Problems Respecting Jurisdiction,” 43.



            18                                                               เล่มที่ ๓ ปีที่ ๖๕
   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34