In civil litigation, the Court of Appeal’s decision often feels like the final word. Yet, in many instances, litigants still have one more option: the Supreme Court. However, not every case qualifies for a direct appeal. In Thailand, most parties must file a petition for leave to appeal in civil cases before the Supreme Court will even consider the matter. This procedural safeguard is designed to preserve judicial efficiency and ensure that only disputes involving significant legal questions, unsettled jurisprudence, or matters of public interest reach the highest court.

As a lead law firm in Bangkok, we regularly advise clients that the Supreme Court does not grant leave simply because a litigant is dissatisfied with an appellate judgment. Instead, the petition must demonstrate substantial legal grounds, highlight unsettled areas of law, or show that an existing interpretation requires reconsideration. For background information, litigants may also review resources available through the Courts of Justice of Thailand and comparative perspectives from institutions such as UNCITRAL.

---

Understanding Civil Appeals and the Need for Leave

Finality of Appellate Judgments

In Thailand’s judicial hierarchy, the Court of Appeal stands as the second level of review after the trial court. Once the Court of Appeal issues a judgment, that decision is binding and enforceable unless a further appeal is permitted. However, the Supreme Court is not designed to function as a “third trial.” Rather, it serves as a court of law, reviewing only substantial legal issues rather than re-examining facts.

Direct Appeals vs. Petitions for Leave

A crucial distinction in civil procedure is between cases that allow a direct appeal to the Supreme Court and those that require a petition for leave to appeal. Direct appeals are limited to specific types of cases, typically involving higher dispute values or issues expressly designated by statute. For all other cases, the party seeking review must persuade the Supreme Court that leave should be granted.

Policy Considerations

The system balances two competing interests: litigants’ rights to exhaust legal remedies and the judiciary’s responsibility to maintain efficiency. By filtering cases through a leave-to-appeal mechanism, the Supreme Court ensures its docket is reserved for cases that can clarify the law, provide uniformity in judgments, or address significant matters of justice.

---

Legal Framework Governing Petitions for Leave

Statutory Provisions

The requirement for leave to appeal is governed by the Civil Procedure Code and related regulations. These rules establish both the monetary thresholds and the types of legal issues that qualify for direct or restricted appeals.

Threshold Value of Dispute

Generally, if the amount in dispute does not exceed a statutory minimum, the case cannot be appealed directly. Instead, the party must request leave. This rule prevents minor disputes from overwhelming the Supreme Court’s limited capacity.

Factual vs. Legal Issues

Perhaps the most critical distinction is between questions of fact and questions of law. The Supreme Court almost never re-evaluates factual findings. Instead, its jurisdiction is focused on determining whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied the law. Thus, any petition for leave must frame its argument in terms of legal errors, not dissatisfaction with factual determinations.

---

Grounds for Granting Leave

The Supreme Court exercises broad discretion in determining whether to grant leave. Nonetheless, certain grounds are recognized as persuasive:

1. Significant Legal Questions – Where the case presents an important legal principle that will affect future disputes.

2. Absence of Settled Jurisprudence – Where there is no clear precedent or the law remains ambiguous.

3. Need for Re-examination – Where existing interpretations are outdated or inconsistent.

4. Public Interest Considerations – Where the outcome may have broader social or economic implications.

It is important to note that a mere claim of injustice or dissatisfaction with the Court of Appeal’s ruling is insufficient. The petition must demonstrate that the legal issue transcends the interests of the individual case.