Page 51 - ดุลพาห เล่ม3.indd

ดุลพาห

comprises all kinds of disputes and enables a plaintiff to bring an action against a
non-domiciliary defendant, even when the claim is unrelated to the activity carried on

by the defendant in Thailand. The lack of a specific relationship between the claim
and activity of the defendant in the forum could diminish legal predictability and

fairness to the defendant. It is also often considered to be an exorbitant ground of
jurisdiction . In order to enhance predictability and protect party interests,
116
jurisdiction based on the business activities of the defendant under Section 3 (2)
should be limited to create only special jurisdiction and restricted to disputes

concerning defendant’s continuous business activities in Thailand . Article 3-3 (v)
117
of the JCCP provides valuable guidance for this type of jurisdiction .
118

(5) Insertion of special rules for choice-of-court agreements, protection
of weak parties, and exclusive jurisdiction

Considering the legal standards and business practices in most countries, as
well as the principle of party autonomy, parties should have the freedom to choose the

jurisdiction through a choice-of-court agreement. A jurisdiction agreement not only
enhances legal certainty, but also avoids the risk of conflicts for jurisdiction and

reduces the time spent in court proceedings. Principle 2.1.1 of the ALI / UNIDROIT
Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure provides that jurisdiction over a

party may be exercised by consent of the parties to submit the dispute to the
tribunal, while Principle 2.4 suggests that the exercise of jurisdiction should

ordinarily be declined when the parties have previously agreed that some other
tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the CPC should be amended

to explicitly allow the parties to make a choice-of-court agreement and require
Thai courts to decline jurisdiction on the basis of such agreement. Although the

116. Article 18 (2) (e) of the 1999 Draft Hague Convention.
117. The 1999 Draft Hague Convention does not forbid the use of commercial activity of the defendant
as a basis for special jurisdiction in a case where the dispute is related to that activity or is directly
connected to it. See Nygh and Pocar, “Report on the Preliminary Draft Convention,” 81.
118. See supra n. 64.

40 เล่มที่ ๓ ปีที่ ๖๕