Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing whether or not Thailand has ever had the Common Law? What are we talking about here? Well let me get into this. I thought of making this video after reading an article that frankly the thrust of it goes in a different direction. I urge those who are watching this video, go check that out for yourselves if you are interested in the subject matter. The article is titled: Thailand's Administrative Court can't make ex-PM Yingluck pay rice compensation. Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com. Quoting directly: "The court on Monday issued a statement clarifying the legal basis in Yingluck's case after Yingluck and her common-law husband, Anusorn Amornchat, requested the Court to revoke the compensation order." 

That got me thinking. When did Thailand ever have the Common Law? Thailand was never a British colony; Thailand does not have Common Law. Common Law is a British mechanism; it's a British invention. Now if you go back and you can get into Pandects of Justinian and Henry VIII leaving “Christendom” and leaving the Catholic fold and the evolution there, and if you go back yes Britain or England, I should say does have a history in the sort of archaic if you will, European Civil Law System but then it went a different way, primarily after Henry VIII left the Catholic Church, and the Church of England got set up and then you had the Ecclesiastical Courts which became the Courts of the King's Conscience and all of this kind of stuff, and then we ended up with the Common Law which essentially it's Law that was sort of made from the bench and the use of Stare Decisis and Precedent to essentially spread that law and apply it on a practical level. 

Thailand doesn't have the Common Law. It was not colonized; she has always maintained her sovereignty and as a result, every time I see that phrase where they say "so and so and their common law spouse", what does that mean exactly? Now I do understand that Miss Yingluck, or Mrs. Yingluck is not in the country right now so maybe wherever they are at, the Common Law applies or where she is at Common Law applies and so therefore, they are sort of stating it for that reason. The other thing is people don't really understand "common law" marriage insofar as it's not an affirmative thing. I remember going through common law marriage back in Washburn Law School, back there, and I remember one of our law professors in Family Law talking about how Common Law marriage does not come into effect until you get divorced insofar as again, you are not declared by anybody or certified by anybody to have a Common Law marriage. It's just a de facto state of affairs and then a Court may later say hey, "you were in a Common Law marriage and therefore we are going to divorce you", okay? So people's perception of the “Common Law” or “Common Law marriage” is very off from the reality. Then on top of that, I just find it to be a real misnomer to state that there even is common law marriage as it pertains to the Thai legal system or to even infer it. Now again, understanding that she is not physically present here, there may be intervening facts where you could say that de facto state of affairs effectively exists, but even that is basically speculation until some Court of Competent Jurisdiction would rule that in fact a common law marriage did exist. 

So the point of this video is can we stop using any terms related to the Common Law when it comes to talking about legal issues as they arise here in the Kingdom of Thailand.