Page 30 - ดุลพาห เล่ม3.indd

ดุลพาห

paragraph provides that “except for immovable property related-claims, the claim in
which the defendant is not domiciled within Thailand and the cause of action did not

occur in Thailand can be brought to the Civil Court or to the court where the plaintiff
is domiciled, if the plaintiff is a Thai national or is domiciled within Thailand.”

Moreover, the second paragraph provides that “in case of the complaint according to
the first paragraph, if the defendant has property which is capable of being executed

in Thailand, the plaintiff may submit such a complaint to the court in which the
defendant’s property is located.” This implies that a Thai plaintiff or those who have

domicile in Thailand can file a lawsuit against a non-resident defendant even if the
claim has no substantial connection to Thai courts. In this case, the Civil Court or

the court for the place of the plaintiff’s domicile will be the court of competent
jurisdiction. Alternatively, the Thai plaintiff can also file an action with the court for

the situs of the defendant’s seizable property if the defendant has seizable property
located in Thailand.

(2) International comparison

Although jurisdiction based on the nationality of the plaintiff can be found in

some countries, such as Article 14 of the French Civil Code , it is widely considered
58
exorbitant and placed on the blacklist of prohibited grounds of jurisdiction under the

1999 Draft Hague Convention . Both Japan and the EU deny jurisdictional grounds
59
based on the nationality and domicile of the plaintiff. Nonetheless, Japanese law

provides a ground for international jurisdiction based on the presence of the
defendant’s property, which is somewhat in line with the second paragraph of

Section 4 ter of the CPC. Article 3-3 (iii) of the JCCP stipulates that an action on a

58. Article 14 of the French Civil Code:
“A foreigner, even if not residing in France, may be sued before French courts for the performance
of obligations contracted by him in France with a French person; he may be sued in the courts of
France for obligations contracted by him in a foreign country towards French persons.”
This provision has been interpreted by the French courts to cover almost all claims even if the
claim has no connection with France. Hartley, “International Commercial Litigation,” 23.
59. Article 18(2)(b)(d) of the 1999 Draft Hague Convention.

กันยายน - ธันวาคม ๒๕๖๑ 19