Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing the usage of precedent in Thai Law. This is a video, I am kind of making a series of these at the moment where I am going back and doing a little refresher on Comparative law. I have done a number of videos in the past on this. I'll try to get the links to those prior videos into the description below so you can go back where I even did deeper dives into the issues of jury trials or private criminal actions here in Thailand or equity and things of this nature. In this video, we are briefly going to touch on precedent. Now let me be clear, I made this video after having a discussion with Attorneys here in our firm. I want to be clear, I'm an American Attorney, not a Thai Attorney, not a Thai lawyer, never claimed to be that, I am an American Attorney. I am a naturalized Thai citizen but I am an American Attorney, that's where my, for what it's worth, expertise comes from in terms of analysis and law.

The issue of precedent, I was talking about with some of the lawyers in the office here and they kind of rolled their eyes at me and I asked one of them why, and they said: "you farang are always talking about this precedent thing and Thailand does not utilize it the same way that you do." Now to be clear, to some extent Thailand does utilize precedent. What are we talking about here? Supreme Court cases especially, when the Supreme Courts in Thailand and there are multiple Supreme Courts; there's different Supreme Courts, again a big difference between the Thai Legal System and the American Legal System but when a Supreme Court depending on its jurisdiction, issues an opinion, that oftentimes is viewed in much the same way we view a Supreme Court opinion in the United States in a way. They are going to use that and that is going to provide guidance if you will for future cases. But the notion of Stare Decisis which is Latin for "let the decision stand", that notion in the Common Law which is very rigidly applied; if we have a similar fact pattern from a prior case, we are going to use the same holding if you will, the same legal reasoning that we used in the prior case. That is not necessarily the case here in Thailand especially at the trial level. That is what to understand about this. 

Okay when you get to the Supreme Court, if they render an opinion, that is going to be pretty compelling in later proceedings but barring that, no we don't utilize precedent at trial court levels, in Thailand it's not utilized to anything near the degree it is utilized for example in the United States. That is a big difference to be aware of and it is one of those differences that has massive implications but it is so subtle you don't really think about it. It's one of those things I find myself sort of coming back to every once in a while. I was talking about this in the context of equity, the notion of equity that we have in the American Legal tradition which is a byproduct if you will of the old British Common Law tradition; again that just doesn't exist here in Thailand. So when you are doing your analysis, you will often find yourself falling back if you will on these sort of, how do I put it, philosophical crutches in terms of the law to do your analysis and you just can't use those lenses if you will to make the analysis in a Thai System. 

So again foreigners that come here make a lot of assumptions about how Thai Law is going to operate. That's not necessarily a good idea and for those who are looking to do something in Thailand where they need legal work, it is definitely a good idea to contact a relevant Thai legal professional, gain some insight and guidance into how best to proceed.