Page 34 - ดุลพาห เล่ม3.indd

ดุลพาห

7. Choice-of-court agreement

(1) The current state of Thai law

Prior to the amendment of the CPC in 1991, parties had the freedom to

select the court in which they wished to submit their disputes. The old Section 7
(4) of the CPC provided that parties could agree in writing to submit any disputes

which have arisen or may arise to the courts for the place of the cause of action, the
place of domiciles of either parties, or the place of the subject matter of the claim.

However, the 1991 amendment repealed this provision due to criticism concerning
the abuse of choice-of-court agreements by hire-purchase companies and financial

institutions in choosing the courts close to their head offices in Bangkok, which were
often detrimental to consumers . Due to the absence of choice-of-court provisions,
71
the validity of a choice-of-court agreement under Thai law is questionable. In 1996,
the Supreme Court held in its decision no. 951/2539 (1996) that a choice of foreign

court agreement as the exclusive forum for litigation was contrary to Section 4 (1)
of the CPC and was therefore void . Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled that a
72
choice of foreign court clause, which did not prohibit the plaintiff from bringing an
action against the defendant in Thai courts, was valid . It can be inferred from these
73
court precedents that an agreement on the exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign court is
not recognized under Thai law and such choice-of-court agreement would not prevent

Thai courts from asserting jurisdiction over the parties as long as the requirements
establishing domestic territorial jurisdiction provided in the CPC are met, such as if

71. Ariyanuntaka, “Problems Respecting Jurisdiction,” 44.
72. Supreme Court Dika no. 951/2539 (1996). The Supreme Court held that a jurisdiction clause in the
bill of lading in which the parties agreed to submit all the disputes to the court of London was void
because it was contrary to the Section 4 (2) [current Section 4 (1)] of the CPC. The Court further
stated that since the defendant had a domicile in Bangkok and the dispute was related to obligations
arose from a contract of carriage by sea, the plaintiff was entitled to bring an action to the court of Bangkok.
73. Supreme Court Case Dika no. 583/2548 (2005).

กันยายน - ธันวาคม ๒๕๖๑ 23