In a recent court case, an individual was being sued, not by plaintiff, but a relative thereof. I responded that the relative had no legal standing to sue. Several colleagues have stated that the court can just change the name on the case. The relative has no interest in the case and therefore has no legal standing. He, the plaintiff, cannot sue. Doesn’t Taiwan law have the concept of legal standing?
That would make the relative the actual plaintiff, no?
There may be a misunderstanding here: you can appoint a relative to represent you in a suit, so you don’t need to go to court in person. You’ll still be the plaintiff, though.
You can also sue, in some cases, for damage to your family’s reputation and so on. If by “plaintiff” you mean someone who was directly harmed by the action giving rise to the suit but is technically not a party to the suit, that’s a 訴外人.
I know. It sounds strange. The person who actually has the right to sue is not suing. Another person is in their stead and he is suing for his relative. I was told they could just change the name and that the defendant just has to address the legal issue that he is being sued for, not whether the person has legal standing. My understanding is that if the person’s name on the lawsuit is not the person who rightfully can sue, then they have no legal standing. Is it different in Taiwan?
Check the Code of Civil Procedure. Without knowing the details of the case (is the “plaintiff” i.e. 原告 actually the plaintiff? If so what is the claim? etc.), it’s hard to say. 
1 Like
Who rightfully can sue could be different in Taiwan.
Shouldn’t the plaintiff be the one with a legal interest in the case? This does not make sense.
If it doesnt make sense, I think the court will reject the plaintiffs claim.
Again, without knowing what’s actually happening in this mysterious case, it’s hard to give an opinion.
Suppose you have an employee who gets fired for some allegedly improper reason. You may think, okay, obviously if there’s a lawsuit it will be the employee (plaintiff) vs. the employer (defendant). Yet if it’s an administrative lawsuit, it will most likely be the employer (plaintiff) vs. the MOL or other government unit (defendant), with the employee merely being a 訴外人. It is also possible for the employee to sue the government for failing to take proper action, requesting the equivalent of a writ of mandamus, though that seems to be rare in Taiwan (and wasn’t possible until something like twenty years ago iirc). And yes, you can have both a civil case and an administrative case arising from the same incident.
If a newspaper publishes an allegedly defamatory story about a specific person, you would expect that person (plaintiff) to sue the newspaper (defendant). Yet a relative (plaintiff) may sue claiming damage to his/her reputation by way of damage to the family’s reputation. It won’t necessarily succeed, but it’s plausible. In that case, the person with the more direct claim is a 訴外人.
Then there’s the arrangement of having a relative represent you in court while you are the plaintiff or defendant. That’s basically like having a relative as a lawyer and has no effect on your identity as plaintiff or defendant.
And then there are cases where technically there is no 原告 because the person making the claim is a 聲請人.
(For further clarification of any of the above, I suggest talking to a lawyer.)
I have delved into this a little further. The defendant was involved in a traffic incident and the plantiff (a woman) signed the paper saying that she could not sue. Fifteen years later, she is suing on behalf of her son (23 years old) who says that he suffered due to her injury. They want something like 1.8 million. I’m thinking that because the woman signed the paper, she has no legal standing. But I am hearing the opposite. This means that really there is no law. A person must be friends with a judge or have some kind of relationship that can protect him / her.
The woman waived her claim against the other party of the traffic accident. It is her son who brings a claim now 15 years later. Is the woman really listed as plaintiff, or is she the agent of the plaintiff?
2 Likes
Child support is parents’ obligation to their child, so if mother said no need, the child still has the right to claim it to father. I don’t know when the statute of limitations runs out in Taiwan. The amount the child can claim may be determined based on each parent’s financial situation. It is not a half of actually spent. and mother’s waiver may be taken in consideration.
Article 1084
Children shall be filial to and respect their parents.
Parents have the rights and the duties to protect, educate and maintain their minor children.
Article 1116-2
The obligation of the parents to maintain their minor child shall not be affected by the annulment of the marriage or the divorce.
OP provided more details, and others have responded to the added information, and I neglected to view the new details and the responses to them, so I’ve deleted my unnecessary and potentially confusing legal stuff.
My apologies to the thread participants, and to the mods and admins if I’ve violated the rules.
Honorable Mr. Jack’s contributions are always appreciated. 
1 Like
Thanks!
I’ll ask to be sure, but I think she is the plaintiff, not the agent.
I guess it is like everything else in Taiwan: confusing!
This is not child support. The person in question (from what he tells me) ran through an intersection and “bumped” a woman with a child. The light was green and it was crowded. In addition, it was reported that she darted through (thus being her fault). He followed everybody’s advice and had a piece of paper signed. In addition, he gave the woman some money because he felt bad for the woman.
After the incident, she still called him. The situation in his view was becoming more amorous than he liked and he directly told her he wasn’t going to answer any more of her phone calls.
Since I posted this, he has gone to Vietnam to teach, but he is concerned that if he ever decides to return that there could be future complications. I replied that Taiwan will probably be a part of China by then and not to worry.
I’m not sure when you think the big change is coming (if that was a serious comment), but extinctive prescription (statute of limitations) aside,
- if they follow the 1C2S model, the legal system will remain basically the same.
- If they don’t follow it, presumably they’ll implement the mainland’s legal system, which wouldn’t necessarily make the guy any less liable.