The Problem of Interpleading in Tort Liability Cases of Officials

Abstract

Section 7 paragraph one of the Act on Tort Liability of Officials, B.E. 2539 (1996) establishes a procedural provision that resembles the concept of “interpleading” as defined in Section 57 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 78 of the Rule of the General Assembly of Judges of the Supreme Administrative Court on Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2543. However, the wording of Section 7 paragraph one is ambiguous and difficult to interpret, particularly when considered in conjunction with Section 5 paragraph one and Section 6. This raises doubts about the consistency of Section 7 paragraph one with the overall tort liability structure established by the Act. Moreover, given the similarity of Section 7 paragraph one to the concept of interpleading in civil and administrative procedures, a further question arises as to whether and to what extent the general provisions on interpleading can be applied in cases involving the tort liability of the officials.

         This study finds that certain provisions within Section 7 paragraph one is inconsistent with the liability structure established by Sections 5 and 6 of the Act on Tort Liability of Officials, B.E. 2539 (1996). These provisions not only serve no apparent purpose but also create interpretive problems. Although Section 7 paragraph one is similar to interpleading, general provisions on interpleading can still be applied in cases of tort liability of the officials, provided that such application does not contravene the specific provisions of this Act.