TV feud ends in court defeat as Jae Ning is ordered to pay 8 million baht for defaming Big Joke’s wife, after judges rule her explosive interview falsely alleged an affair and crimes, causing reputational damage.
The wife of former top policeman General Surachate Hakparn scored a decisive court victory on Monday, when the Civil Court awarded her ฿8 million in damages over a sensational national TV broadcast aired in October 2024, after Ms. Thanattha Yodyiam, also the wife of a senior police officer, made claims about Mrs. Sirinadda Hakparn during an interview on a popular television program, allegations that suggested involvement in criminal acts and included other salacious details, which the court ruled were unsupported, lacked factual foundation, and were presented to a national audience as facts in a misleading manner, leading the court to award Mrs. Sirinadda the bulk of her claim along with court costs.
The Civil Court has ordered Jae Ning to pay 8 million baht to the wife of Pol. Gen. Surachate Hakparn in a defamation case. The verdict was delivered on February 9, 2026, at the Civil Court on Ratchadaphisek Road. The ruling was issued under case number P.4343/2568 and followed a lawsuit seeking 10 million baht in damages.
The plaintiff was Mrs. Sirinadda Hakparn, the wife of Pol. Gen. Surachate Hakparn, widely known as Big Jok. At the time relevant to the case, Pol. Gen. Surachate was a former Deputy Commissioner General of the Royal Thai Police.
Meanwhile, the defendant was Ms. Thanattha Yodyiam, also known as Nichanant Yodyiam or Nomchobpitak, and publicly referred to as Jae Ning.
Court examines interview accusations and finds public could identify plaintiff without name used
The lawsuit stemmed from a televised interview broadcast in October 2024. At that time, the defendant appeared on a program titled “Debate Without Arguing.” During the broadcast, she made a series of accusations against another woman. Specifically, she alleged an affair with her husband. Additionally, she accused the woman of trespassing. She also claimed theft of her personal property.
Although the defendant did not directly name the plaintiff, the court examined how the statements were understood publicly. Importantly, the interview aired on a news program with a wide reach. As a result, the court focused on public interpretation rather than naming. According to the ruling, viewers could identify the person being described.
The court found that the general public understood the references pointed to Mrs. Sirinadda Hakparn. Therefore, the absence of a direct name did not prevent identification. Instead, contextual details made the identity clear. Consequently, the statements were considered defamatory.
The court ruled that the accusations implied serious misconduct. In particular, they suggested an extramarital relationship. Moreover, they implied criminal acts, including trespass and theft. These implications were presented as factual claims. They were not framed as opinion or allegation.
Court finds accusations false and unsupported, linking national television broadcast to reputational harm
Furthermore, the court found that the statements were false. They were broadcast without supporting evidence. As a result, the court held that the interview caused damage. The harm included injury to reputation. It also included damage to the plaintiff’s livelihood.
Mrs. Sirinadda Hakparn filed the lawsuit on October 15, 2025. She brought the case under civil tort law. She sought compensation for reputational and personal damage. During the proceedings, the court reviewed the interview content in detail.
In addition, the court considered the platform used. Because the statements were made on television, their impact was amplified. Therefore, the court linked the broadcast medium directly to the extent of harm suffered.
The interview also referenced the defendant’s husband. He was identified as Police Colonel Bhimphoj Nomchobpitak. The senior officer serves as a Level 4 lecturer. He works in the Faculty of Police Science at the Royal Thai Police Academy. According to the court, these details narrowed the possible identities involved. As a result, the plaintiff was identifiable to viewers.
Civil court rules defendant committed defamation and orders 8 million baht damages with interest applied
After reviewing the evidence, the court ruled that the defendant committed defamation. Consequently, civil liability was established. However, the court did not award the full amount sought. Instead, it ordered the defendant to pay 8 million baht in damages.
In addition, the court ordered interest on the damages. Interest was set at 5 per cent per annum. Importantly, the interest accrues from the date the lawsuit was filed. That date was October 15, 2025. Interest will continue until full payment is made.
The court also ordered the defendant to pay court costs. These costs include legal expenses incurred by the plaintiff. The attorney’s fee was set at 10,000 baht.
Verdict delivered in open court as case ends at first instance with order remaining enforceable intact
The verdict was delivered in open court. With this ruling, the civil case concluded at first instance. As of the judgment date, no appeal outcome was reported. Therefore, the order remains enforceable.
Big Joke’s wife questioned and arrested after surrendering on theft charges filed by Police Colonel
War between spouses of top police officers offers a terrifying glimpse of behind the scene rivalries
The court emphasised that defamation does not require explicit naming. Instead, public understanding is decisive. Accordingly, contextual identification was sufficient in this case.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the televised interview caused direct harm. The damage arose from false accusations broadcast publicly. As a result, the defendant was ordered to pay damages, interest, and costs under the court’s judgment.
Join the Thai News forum, follow Thai Examiner on Facebook here
Receive all our stories as they come out on Telegram here
Follow Thai Examiner here
Further reading:
War between spouses of top police officers offers a terrifying glimpse of behind the scene rivalries
Big Joke’s wife questioned and arrested after surrendering on theft charges filed by Police Colonel
General Kittirat’s appointment as police chief comes under the spectre of legal action by Big Joke
Police Chief’s wife grilled over UK Property and Financial trail for three hours by Inquiry Panel
Police Ethics Committee official denies a decision on Big Joke has already been made. Due next week
Fate of top cops including Big Tor and Big Joke to become clearer after Wissanu’s 11 am statement
