Nitipat NIDA Law Journal

The Legal Status of Animals and the Challenges of Co-Ownership in Companion Animals

Natthawee Neammee, Tunyaporn Meeduang, Primwisa Thongcha-on — Sat, 20 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0700

This article aims to propose a reform of the legal principles governing the status of companion animals under property law and the division of co-ownership in such animals. By drawing on the strengths of legal frameworks from various countries, the article seeks to adapt these principles to the specific social context of Thailand, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of law enforcement in matters relating to the legal status of pets and the division of co-ownership. The study addresses two central questions: (1) How does Thai law currently perceives the status of companion animals and classify them under property law, and is legal reform necessary? (2) How does Thai law regulate the division of co-ownership in pets, and should it be revised? The study finds that Thailand currently belongs to the group of jurisdictions that classify animals strictly as property. Accordingly, the article proposes a shift toward the approach adopted by jurisdictions that recognize animals as more than mere property. As for co-ownership, Thai law does not allow animal welfare to be taken into account, so the article recommends amending the provisions accordingly.

Front Section Nitipat 2-2025

Nitipat NIDA — Sat, 20 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0700

end_ Nitipat_2-2025

Nitipat NIDA — Sat, 20 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0700

Problems to Enforcement of the Municipal Act B.E. 2496 and the Provincial Administration Act B.E. 2457: Study of the Removal of Subdistrict Headmen, Village Headmen, Assistant Village Headman, Subdistrict Medical Practitioner, and Assistant Subdistrict Headman in Areas Upgraded to Town Municipality or City Municipality

Vayupak Thaboonma, Wimonrat Saelee, Nichsha Vatcharakunphong — Sat, 20 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0700

Subdistrict Headmen, Village Headmen, Assistant Village Headman, Subdistrict Medical Practitioner, and Assistant Subdistrict Headman serve as frontline officials closely engaged with local communities. They perform duties pursuant to state laws and policies and coordinate between the provincial administration and local administrative organization. Their responsibilities include maintaining public order, managing disasters and epidemics, and mediating community disputes. However, following the adoption of decentralization principles in The Constitution of The Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2540, and the amendment of Section 4 of the Municipal Act B.E. 2496 in B.E. 2546, conflicts have arisen in the legal framework governing local administration.

The amended the Municipal Act stipulates that in any locality upgraded to a town municipality or city municipality, one year after the official announcement by the Ministry of Interior, prohibition of appointment of subdistrict headmen, village headmen, assistant village headman, subdistrict medical practitioner, and assistant subdistrict headman, and removed from their positions. This provision creates legal contradictions with the Provincial Administration Act B.E. 2457, which still recognizes the authority of subdistrict headmen and village headmen in Town Municipality or City Municipality. These overlapping or conflicting roles raise questions about the status and function of such positions within Town Municipality or City Municipality areas, where elected mayors and municipal councils now exercise administrative authority.

Therefore, it is essential to study the problems to enforcement related to the Municipal Act B.E. 2496, which conflicts with the Provincial Administration Act B.E. 2457, to develop legal reforms that align with the evolving administrative context. Addressing these conflicts requires consideration of legal provisions, administrative structures, and their impact on the public to ensure effective governance and minimize conflicts in local administration.

Legal Measures for Protecting Mentally Disordered Offenders During the Criminal Investigation: A Case of Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Manita Kamfukfon, Yada Dejchai Tianprasit — Sat, 20 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0700

The competency to stand trial, specifically during the investigation, under Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code forms the foundation for other rights for protecting rights of mentally disordered offenders during criminal proceedings. Mentally disordered offenders are considered vulnerable since they have disadvantages in terms of mental, emotional, and cognitive abilities impairment, which could affect the understanding of rights. Therefore, assessing competence to stand trial during the investigation is crucial to prevent the violation of rights and to ensure that mentally disordered offenders can fully exercise their rights. But from the study, it was found that the protection of the rights of mentally disordered offenders faces three main challenges: first, the issue of identifying offenders who may have mental disorders; second, the lack of provision to allow support persons during the investigation to protect rights of such offenders; and third, the absence of clear criteria for assessing competence to stand trial during the investigations. Therefore, this research article aims to propose improvements to provide protective measures for mentally disordered offenders during criminal investigation by analyzing the current measures in Thailand, identifying the problems, and comparing them with protective measures in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom (England and Wales), Australia (Queensland), the United States (California), and Japan.

Legal Issues in the Claiming of Preferential Right on Account of Preservation of Immovable Property for Expenses under the Land Development Act B.E. 2543

Thitikan Chinpirasatian — Sat, 20 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0700

This research article examines the legal issues surrounding the claim of preferential rights for expenses related to the preservation of immovable property under the Land Development Act B.E. 2543. The issue arises because land developers and developed-estate juristic entities cannot claim debts with preferential rights prior to mortgagees, and auction proceeds from subdivided developed land of delinquent payers are not reserved for land developers.

This article employs comparative documentary research to examine the claiming of common property expenses within Thai law, in comparison with the laws of the United States (Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina), the United Kingdom, Malaysia, and the Condominium Act B.E. 2522.

The study finds that in Malaysia, the land developer is responsible for maintaining the estate before the juristic entity is established, with clearly defined responsibilities for each party. In contrast, the United States and the United Kingdom establish juristic entities at the outset. Specifically, in Florida and North Carolina, the juristic entity unilaterally records a lien on delinquent developed land for unpaid debt. Furthermore, in both Florida and Nevada, juristic entities have the right to receive portions of debt repayment prior to mortgagees, consistent with the Condominium Act B.E. 2522. Therefore, this research proposes amending Section 50 and 53 of the Land Development Act B.E. 2543, allowing unilateral notification of preferential rights, which would lead to the same priority right in debt repayment as mortgage creditors. It also proposes amending Section 335 paragraph 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code to extend its scope to include debts from charges imposed by land developers.

The Problem of Tax Arrears Collection under Section 12 of the Revenue Code: A Study of Limited Companies

Chinnakon Chitniwon — Sat, 20 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0700

The objective of this study is to examine the laws related to the collection of tax arrears, with a focus on the case of limited companies in Thailand and comparative studies of foreign jurisdictions, namely the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and India, as well as the Thai Revenue Code. The study found that the Revenue Code should be amended to authorize the Director-General of the Revenue Department to file a lawsuit requesting that a company director be ordered to pay outstanding tax liabilities in place of the juristic person, in cases where the director has intentionally acted to evade taxes. Such acts include fraud or deceit to avoid tax payment, concealing or distorting financial information, preparing false reports, allowing insolvency to avoid tax liability, continuing operations despite knowing the company cannot pay taxes, or violating tax laws or enforceable orders.

Liability should also arise from gross negligence, such as failure to supervise or manage the company leading to tax arrears, abuse of authority for personal gain, or failure to prevent tax-related damage. In all cases, the director shall be liable only when the Revenue Department can prove the conduct falls within the specified legal criteria.