.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Irene
-
Posts
658 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Posts posted by Irene
-
-
Thank you! Most helpful. I have always wondered why there are so many tailor shops with Indian owners along the seaside.
-
Bangkok Christian Hospital at Silom Road is another choice for you. Not luxurious but efficient and reasonable price.
-
You are right that the VT group must be in a desperate situation. That is why the huge board was put up with a full-blown picture of the City Hall's permit to show that they are still legal though without disclosure of the permit being challenged and an injunction in suspending the construction already issued.
...and a not so subtle way to remind people and City Hall how they screwed up. I still feel the court will bend over backwards to find a way for City Hall to save face and extricate themselves from this mess. There is enough wiggle room in the confusing interpretation of a poorly written ministerial regulation.
ThaiBob,
You are really cynical on our Thai judiciary. Of the three branches, parliament, government and judiciary, the one still commands a lot of respect is the judiciary. There is nothing for the court to save face since the City Hall is a separate entity and has no relationship with the court.
Furthermore, the City Hall would lose no face since, as stated by you, "there is enough wiggle room" on interpretation by saying sorry I misinterpreted or misunderstood the clause. Hence, I am rather optimistic for Richard Haines and others because of my belief of the independence of the court and the City Hall through the public prosecutor would not fight the case like their lives are depending on the winning.
You are right that the VT group will not take this challenge quietly, they will find ways of beating the wrap. Whether successful or not depends on chances.
-
Gambling is unlikely to be legal in Thailand because of a strong group of lobbyist believing strongly on Buddhist tenets. Though they may not be the majority but they have the loudest voice. Just look at the ban on alcohol advert, I never thought that would be possible. Yes, bmanly, you are likely to lose.
I was hoping for this response because when this is all over in 7 Months, 1 year, 2 years or 20 years I will still be posting here and I WILL bring up the subject no matter what, but some how I doubt you will be around to to answer your critics on this forum, I've seen many a newbie post and run when the event is over. Good luck to all parties concerned.
bmanly,
I doubt that I need to run away in future since gambling can never be legal in Thailand and the case of Richard Haines and others against the City Hall is likely to become historical like Jack the Giant-Killer. I especially felt so when I saw that posting of the big board of the developer indicating fear and desperation.
-
The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.
Richard
You are wrong, my friend is a buyer and has put in quite a considerable amount of baht into the condo he is buying in VT7. He has every right to be upset, he bought that place for his retirement NOT TO MAKE MONEY!
I have no interest in either properties but as a property investor there is one thing that is never ever guaranteed and that is the block of land in front of you. If you want absolute sea views then buy absolute sea front land, same everywhere in the world.
Your friend is right to be upset with VT, and only VT.
In this case the block of land is, by Law, guaranteed to be built on only to a height of 14 meters.
If you take note of the photo I posted before VT5 is in the background, complete and finished. Why did no one say anything about that and the several other buildings that may be questionable? There are a lot of other buildings closer to the water than VT5 too.
It's only about the views that will be lost that the Jomtien Complex Condotel have really filed this complaint isn't it? Otherwise they would have been a bit more proactive about other buildings being built both at present and in the past.
I have been around these parts now for quite a few years now an I will be around for quite a few more. If gambling was legal in Thailand I would put my money on VT7 and City Hall for a win. This is Thailand, anything can and will happen and usually the big boys win.
bmanly,
Buildings that are standing less than 200 metres are likely to be the one that was built before this new law of 200 metres was enacted.
Gambling is unlikely to be legal in Thailand because of a strong group of lobbyist believing strongly on Buddhist tenets. Though they may not be the majority but they have the loudest voice. Just look at the ban on alcohol advert, I never thought that would be possible. Yes, bmanly, you are likely to lose.
-
This went up today.
bmanly,
That is correct that the construction is legal with the appropriate building permit from the authority. The permit cannot be revoked until the Court has ordered so or considered the permit as good. Until that is known, the permit still stands except no construction could continue.
The only part that is missing from that huge posters for any potential buyers is the information that the Administrative Court has temporarily suspended the ongoing construction until the Court has deliberated the issue as from Novemeber 2007. Caveat Emptor!!! Let's the buyers beware!!!
Well under these circumstances I would walk away from any such property anywhere in the world. I by the way do not invest in Thailand because laws are often not worth the paper it is written on and if you are a farang it will almost always go against you.
bmanly,
Your reaction is correct on this type of property and in other countries, the continuance of sale offer would not have been allowed. The committed buyers of VT7 must be scratching their heads of what to do next.
But you are wrong on Thai laws which are well respected as independence and unbiased irrespective of your nationality. The bad deal the foreigners get is sometimes because of their representation and sometimes the enforcement force that has been giving Thai justice bad name.
-
Hi, I'm not fully conversant with the intricacies of the case, so please forgive me for asking what may in these circles be considered a daft question: Could such a situation exist whereby the VT group offer 'compensation packages' to the residents of JCC in return of allowing the building to continue unopposed? Or, have VT even tried this already to make the problem go away? I fully take into account 'principles' and 'rights' involved and I don't mean in any way whatsover to insinuate that it would be about the money or mean any offence - but just was wondering if either of those would be likely or is it past the point of no return so to speak?
Ungabunga,
No, not a daft question but a very good and very practical one that must have crossed the VT's mind. The VT group would definitely love to find ways and means of making this delay disappeared. I have no idea whether they did try to stop the JCC people from taking the case to the Administrative Court earlier.
But, at this present stage and with the case already under the deliberation of the Court, any compromise has to be made with the Court's consent. I simply cannot see JCC can compromise with only 10 co-owners (the number of plaintiffs) with VT. You would need all the co-owners of JCC to agree to that. To get a complete concensus of 100% co-owners requires miracle unless the VT group's offer is something that no one is likely to refuse. Second, the Court may not like the compromise if it considers the whole matter is necessary to be judged and concluded for the sake of good public order. Reading only the postings of the arguments on the measurement of 200 metres, I tend to think that the Court is likely to take the public order stand and disallow the compromise.
You are right that the VT group must be in a desperate situation. That is why the huge board was put up with a full-blown picture of the City Hall's permit to show that they are still legal though without disclosure of the permit being challenged and an injunction in suspending the construction already issued.
-
This went up today.
bmanly,
That is correct that the construction is legal with the appropriate building permit from the authority. The permit cannot be revoked until the Court has ordered so or considered the permit as good. Until that is known, the permit still stands except no construction could continue.
The only part that is missing from that huge posters for any potential buyers is the information that the Administrative Court has temporarily suspended the ongoing construction until the Court has deliberated the issue as from Novemeber 2007. Caveat Emptor!!! Let's the buyers beware!!!
-
The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.
Richard
You are wrong, my friend is a buyer and has put in quite a considerable amount of baht into the condo he is buying in VT7. He has every right to be upset, he bought that place for his retirement NOT TO MAKE MONEY!
I have no interest in either properties but as a property investor there is one thing that is never ever guaranteed and that is the block of land in front of you. If you want absolute sea views then buy absolute sea front land, same everywhere in the world.
bmanly,
But Richard believed that his Jomthien property was the seafront area and not to be blocked the nearby buidling that will be situated within 200 metres of the seashore. Hence, he took the City Hall to court for breaching the regulations in allowing the permit for that 27 floors high rise. He is now protecting his right.
Unfortunately, the buyers of VT7 would have to face the consequences of his protective action. Hopefully, they should get their refunds if the court's decision is final in a few years time. Now, they should seek legal advices whether they should go on paying their instalments and their necessary actions. Is the suspension caused by force majeour? I doubt that.
-
When Jomthien Complex Condotel was built they promise a luxury low rise hotel in front of the condos. This hotel was featured in their literature and was a selling point for the condos. Then in 2003 JCC developers announce they sold the land after the placed it in a sister company. They never asked condo owners to buy, or told the condo owners it was for sale. And it was never listed with a realtor as being for sale. So what do you thing this sale was about? Or was their a real sale? Is this a joint venture between JCC and VT to build VT7?
So if you could stop this VT7 project would you not try? Or do you enjoy people sh_ting on you?
Or would you just watch this law from 1978 be broken? Just do nothing? When a developer has enough tea money for city hall to issue a questionable building permit? The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.
Richard
Richard,
Agreed! Great Stuff! You and your friends are not to be blamed for the losses of VT7 buyers who face big losses if they cannot get a refund from the developer if the Court favours you and your friends. You are usurping your legal rights in protecting your assets. Those buyers are now facing the dilemma of whether to updating their instalment payments when the future of VT7 is uncertain and will be uncertain for quite a while.
-
Hi thebounder,
Let the readers be the best judge of your contributions to this thread whether you are now back-tracking yourself nicely and blame on me for misreading your contention. Since I have declared my independence on the case, can you do likewise.
Irene
What??? Are you for real? How can I possibly be backtracking by quoting exact words from my initial post?
Yes, I am 100% independent. I have nothing to do with this thing whatsoever and couldn't care less about the eventual outcome. However, I am a multi jurisdictional qualified lawyer and have signficant, high level experience of injunctions (albeit, as I made quite clear, not in Thailand). This being a forum, I thought I would try to aid the understanding of anyone interested enough to read by explaining that there is a big difference between the granting of an interim injunction and a final judgement upon an issue.
Please go argue with someone else. In your various posts, you have agreed that all the injunction means is that the applicants have shown a prima facie case, that the respondent has not yet had the chance to put its case and that the granting of an injunction is not a good guide to the eventual outcome of a case. Wait a minute, that was exactly what I was trying to say... So please read carefully and think before you type.
Hi thebounder,
I asked whether you were independent because from one of your previous postings I noticed that you were a real estate agent in Pataya.
I read your posting carefully, especially on the part you put the caution to the Jomtien co-owners that they could face an eventual claim for compensation for the delay of the construction (if the Court agrees with the City Hall). Even though you put in a lot of qualifications of "may" and "your known jurisdiction", not being a high-powered lawyer, I still found the contention as somewhat scary to the Applicants (plaintiff) when in my legalistic mind the possibility of having to face that loss is remote in theory and in practice especially when the Administrative Court did not throw out the case as frivolous.
If you did not mention the risk of compensation payments by the Applicant, I would have viewed your posting as noble in sharing your experience.
-
Well this is getting interesting. As you pointed out the ministerial regulation uses the word "sea shore". Do you have specific references (regulation numbers, case numbers, etc.) to the "other" Thai law that uses high-tide as the measuring point? How did the City of Pattaya measure for VT3, VT5, and other new projects? If you can nail the City on the high-tide mark you definitely have a winning case. But why the far away court date in November? Seems like that date gives the City some breathing room. You've caught them off guard and should act quickly before they can re-group. Even if they lose I suppose there will be lengthy and costly appeals.
Hi ThaiBob,
The date in November was the earliest date in the judge's diary when he is available to listen to the first hearing. There is no motive of either having time to investigate the "c" since the court has no investigative power, nor giving time to the City to defend its case.
Per Thai Civil Code, seashore falls under the public domain that the public can use. So, in short, no private beach is legally possible. Therefore, it also supports the high- tide measurement and the starting benchmark can even be closer to View Talay i.e. the area where there is sand, i.e. the deck-chair area. Even though the fact may favour Jomtien co-owners but the potential losses to the developer and its committed customers are great, so watch out the development carefully as Thaifan2 has warned that "this is Thailand". So do not be over-confident and sit on one's laurel!!!
-
Irene, if you are going to address legal matters you really need to read a great deal more carefully. If you read my initial post again, carefully, you will see that your interpretation of it is absolutely wrong. You seem to ignore qualifications such as, "Although I am not familiar with Thai law on injunctions...", "a Court would generally..." and "the Applicants may..."
My point, which I think was actually very clear, was that all that has happened so far is the Court has decided there is a prima facie case on the basis of the Applicant's submissions and that any defences that the Respondent may have, have not yet been considered, both points which you have agreed yourself. The meaning of which is that, contrary to what some people may believe, the granting of an injunction is of limited relevance to the outcome of the final case. Things can often seem very different when you have only heard one side of the story.
Maybe the joint owners have an exceptionally strong case, I don't know, but the granting of the injunction is not a particularly good guide as to whether or not that is the case (you yourself say the injunction is not conclusive guidance). A lot of people seem to have jumped to the conclusion that because an injunction has been granted the case is all, but won. I was merely trying to explain that usually that is not the case. In your various posts you have agreed exactly that, so why try to criticize something which is not wrong.
Hi thebounder,
Let the readers be the best judge of your contributions to this thread whether you are now back-tracking yourself nicely and blame on me for misreading your contention. Since I have declared my independence on the case, can you do likewise.
Irene
-
[
We file our court case the 12 of March and had a court hearing 28 of March and receive the protection of temporarily court injunction on 9 of April. Which stop the construction of View Talay Project 7. That is fasts! I heard dozen of times from farang what I was wasting my time organizing ten co-owners and raising funds for a court case. This court decision shows that Administrative Court applies the law without looks at ones nationality. Thailand is a country of laws and Administrative Court in Rayon applied the law fairy. The regulation is that any building over 14 meters tall (about 3 stories) is prohibited within 200 meters of the "sea shore". There is other Thai law which states that "sea shore" is measured from "the high tide line.
Remember the admin court did not want to give a final decision because they investigates government agency for "c". So they left this question open and can keep their investigation open.
In the final decision the line will be high tide, their many case which set high tide as the place to beginning to start measurements.
Richard
Richard,
Yes, it has to be fast because of your lawyer's request for an emergency hearing which was granted by the Court. But now under due deliberation and with tight schedules of the court, it is likely to be a year or two before the final decision on where the 200-metres is to be measured from. An appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court is likely from either side, then that will be another year or two. So during this interval, there can be a lot of happenings from the City Hall and View Talay.
Whatever the outcome, I admire you and ten other co-owners for perseverance and ignoring the rumour-mill of the expat community. There are many surprises that Thailand is good at in term of justice, if you get the right lawyer. So, sit tight and watch how the case could evolve. I have got the feeling that you and your colleagues are likely to make a history here.
All the best, Irene
-
Hi the bounder,
I don't pretend to know the details of the case and couched my thoughts very much in those terms, i.e using the words "may" and "generally"... In most jurisdictions, if you apply for an injunction, get it, but subsequently lose the case, you are often liable to compensate those who lost money as a result of the injunction. Are you sure that is not the case here? If it is eventually found that the permit was in fact issued correctly, I would be extremely surprised if the Applicants were not pursued for damages. After all, if the action was brought incorrectly and as a result someone lost money, why shouldn't they seek to recover it. If there was no down side to applying for injunctive relief, one would have thought parties would go for it very regularly. After all, why not, you wouldn't stand to lose anything even if you got it wrong.
I am so sure it is not the case here. That is why Tom, Dick and Harry have been suing the the Thai government or semi-government departments with relish without fear of any repercussions. Thai NGO's love to resort to this Court. Hence, the likelihood of a quick judgment on this Jomtien case is pretty remote. Currently, one NGO has alleged PTT for having privatised improperly its enterprise and wanted the Administrative Court to revert PTT back to the previous position of a state enterprise. The case has stunted the share price of PTT at the stock market. Can the PTT shareholders sue this NGO lot for damaging their shareholdings? Hardly. Your understanding is correct that with that background cases against the state are so inundated with frivolous cases. The idea of an administrative court is to facilitate citizens' claims against oppression of the state. The Administrative Court only accepts cases of citizens against the state and not citizens against citizens. It helps citizens to sue government departments with least formality. One can even write in a similar to a complaint letter. This new form of justice is recent and has influenced the government and semi-government departments in giving more respects to citizens' rights. It has improved the fair running of their power immensely.
I am very surprised to hear that the party subject to the order, i.e View Talay, are not a party to the proceedings. In the jurisdictions in which I have practiced, they would have to be made a party, a co-respondent alongside City Hall, although I fully appreciate that doesn't necessarily mean that is the case here in Thailand. I would be interested to know whether they have locus standi to address the Court at the final hearing. Ordinarily a non-party could not be heard.
It was viewed by the Applicants as a misdeed of the City Hall in granting the building permit to View Talay. The alleged erroneous deed was committed by the City Hall and not View Talay, so there is no point for View Talay to be a co-party to the case. Naturally, View Talay could be called as witnesses for the City Hall.
I am not sure if you misunderstood my original post. I am not saying the Applicants are in a weak position, the truth is I have no idea as to the merits of the case. I was merely stating, as you appear to have agreed, that the hearing on whether to grant an injunction is essentially a one-sided matter and therefore should not necessarily be viewed as any kind of reliable guide as to the eventual outcome of the case.
Your original post gave the impression that it would still be a long way for the Jomtien co-owners to win the case and also likelihood of having to pay View Talay for compensation if View Talay eventually wins the case.
Hearing of the injunction request is based on the potential sufferings of the Applicants and merits of the case and therefore the Respondent has no right to challenge the Applicants' filing. It is the judge who is to question on the presentation and makes his early decision either for or against the Applicants. It is definitely not a conclusive guidance on the final outcome but somewhat tilted at this early stage to favour the Jomtien co-owners.
I wrote this post because of your observations were truly far off the mark and feared of the alarm that the Jomtien co-owners could have suffered. I am a disinterested party but enjoy seeing fairness in our society.
-
While the decision of the Court to grant a temporary injunction is clearly a sensible one (if building was allowed to continue pending a full hearing, if it was subsequently stopped significant time and money would have been wasted, plus the applicants may have suffered irreparable structural damage), it is eminently possible that the building will still go ahead.
Although I am not familiar with Thai law on injunctions, in general terms interim injunctive relief is usually granted on a similar basis regardless of jurisdiction. The kind of factors that will have been taken into account are whether the applicants have shown a prima facie case and clearly they have.
However, upon such an application, the Court is not really concerned with any defences the Respondent may have, unless they are very obvious, that being something reserved for the full hearing. A Court would generally be far more concerned with whether the Respondent can be properly compensated in damages in the event that the injunction was improperly granted. In fact, the Applicants may have had to give an undertaking in damages to get the injunction, that would be quite common in jurisdictions with which I am more familiar.
In this case, it would seem to be quite straightforward to compensate the Respondent in damages for delay and thus, so long as the Applicants have a decent argument, the correct way to go would be to grant the injunction. It is a long way short of saying the Applicants are sure to win at final judgement.
Hi the bounder,
The Administrative Court has agreed that the Applicants were the affected parties of the coming View Talay high-rise buildings and based on the Applicant's one-sided presentation, in the Court's judgement, there is a prima facie evidence of the erroneous permit granted by the City Hall to View Talay. Therefore under our Thailand jurisdiction or even in most jurisdiction, any damages for the delay that may have caused View Talay (not the Respondent who is the City Hall) can hardly be blamed on the Applicants who rely on their legal rights to defend their property. It is the Court that requires time for due process of the law to listent to the other side's argument. Taking a legal case against officialdom is the citizens' rights and justifiable as proved by the issuance of the injunction. In this case, the Applicants were not ordered to pay any deposits to enable the Court to grant the injunction which is unheard of in Thailand.
So in short, those Jomtien co-owners can continue with their celebration during these festive days, the victory may be temporary but certainly a sweet one. If View Talay dares to continue with the construction despite the court's order, then their management and workers definitely would be put in front of the Court for jail sentences. They have to wait until the final deliberation of the Supreme Administrative Court. It will be a long-drawn wait for View Talay. If they want to seek for damages for the delay, then the party they should aim at is the City Hall who has issued a permit which is disputable. This is a great case for Thailand to show that not only justice shall be done but it shall also be seen to be done.
As to the future outcome, it is depending very much on the presentation as to the distance of the View Talay building to the sea by both legal counsels. However, the issued injunction is a good sign that the Applicants' case against the City Hall for the wrongful act is credible and now up to the City Hall to reveal under what basis they issued the building permit. So, again in short, the Jomtien co-owners can still be cautionary optimistic and should co-ordinate with their counsel closely in building up their case. It is quite a comfort to realise that the Respondent (the City Hall) has no financial benefits in winning or losing the case and if the Court favours the Applicants, they can always blame on the interpretation and/or misunderstanding.
With that background, I do not think the future for the co-owners is bleak at all and I would still cry out a big hurray for the co-owners!!! It is the View Talay and their customers that are not in an enviable position.
-
Hi,
First choice is property fund in the stock exchange at the moment. The ones with liquidity are SPF (Samui airport), and CPNRF (central rama 2 & 3 property). No hassles and yield of 10% and 8% respectively with potential capital gain. Lower interest rate is likely for the rest of 2007. So income from bank interest is unlikely to exceed 4%.
If you have to pick condos and not wishing to liquidate in two or three years, pick the one near to the mass transit stations, supermarket and public park plus GOOD MANAGEMENT. You may have to pay a premium price now but chance of recovery is good since supply in this ideal area is now limited. While waiting for capital gain, rental yield could amount to 5%.
For me, there is no hard and fast rule. Gut-feeling is the best in testing one's judgement. Starting with a small sum until gaining better confidence.
-
More and more lies...
Parinya explained he needed about three days as Surayud is to be placed on a strict diet and administered with a laxative for two days so that his colon is clean and his intestine is ready to undergo a "virtual colonoscopy".
It's strange... a colonoscopy takes one day (not night) at Bumrungrad hospital.
You come early in the morning... They give you a strong laxative... And hop... in the afternoon they do the examination.
At 4 PM, bye, bye. You go home.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/10...al_30031547.php
shar... shar... no need to jump on this at this point in time.
Many colonscopies, particularly in older patients, require more prep time.... AND if the exam is being conducted along with other studies, such as a cardiac work-up... it can easily stretch into a couple of days.
This is Thailand, where people get admitted to the hospital for 3 days because of a head cold.
Is there something more behind all of this? dunno... it's far too little to speculate so strongly on.
Folks,
This is special for the Prime Minister. He needs rest for a few days. Free from press, from engagements, possibly from decision-making, and acid in his stomache!!!
-
[
Recently I was speaking with someone who said that since the Administrative Court was set up justice can be got.
Hi,
You are spot on with the Administrative Court. They are fresh air to Thai system with quick justice for the aggrieved who receive unfair authoritarian oppression from the government or semi-government departments. The Court is the European ombudsman of Thailand even better than the US (see the film on Erin Bockovich with time-consuming justice).
The first surprise in Thailand was the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand in attempting to privatise its entity and now had to put on hold for ages. The major benefit from the existence of the administrative court is that now the authority has to be more careful and giving more respect to laws, rules and regulations. I am so happy for small men.
This is the major set-back for all the condo developers in the beach area. Caveat Emptor!!! All the buyers and potential customers should beware!!! You can pay your deposits and instalments with hardships in getting the refunds and even no return of your money.
-
Folks,
Congratulations to those involved!!! It is good for all of us to know that Thailand has a rule of law and sense of justice!!! May you all win the case in the end!!!
-
Hi Irene,
I think your daughter needs to understand that the medication is probably given to her as a preventative measure a little like one wears a seat-belt in a car. There will be plenty of people out there willing to offer alternative therapies but will they be around to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.
I have noticed the use of CBT Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is very useful in treating manic depressive patients.
I think also it is important for the patient to adopt a regime of self-management without too much reliance on health-care providers and carers. It is obvious that you are trying to do everything to help your daughter but she has to understand and deal with the condition herself.
Best Wishes BB
Hi BB,
You have just woken me up. I have been pondering of the situation when I am gone. The thought was frightening. I will start to change the direction now on the two areas as pointed out by you. I am most grateful for your writing. Somehow, I am starting to like this webboard.
Warmest regards, Irene
-
Hello again
Hi Snow White,
You are in a good position now to stay away from him. He is a self -centred so and so. When I first read your mail, I thought you were both in Thailand, which is excusable for him. But being in your country for eleven years, he still does not understand the meaning of human rights, then you would have a long term problem if you marry him. I am in Thailand and have seen so many of Thai husbands doing the housewife's chores with delight in helping out. I have never seen one spouse calling another to fetch his telephone for him when he can do it himself. There must be five families I know of which are most united as a family unit than those with a lot of servants. Thai scenario has changed a lot and please don't blame on our culture. The change is due to economi opportunity with both working. So working as a team to make good of the future for your children seems to be the top desire. There is no longer a belief that a woman's role is to serve. Working as a team is a secret tip to a successful marriage. I have been married for thirty years and never have my husband put me in any sub-servient position. He respects my rights as much as I respect his right.
-
Hi John K, Sheryl, Tim armstrong and ZZZ,
Just a note of thank you for the suggestions and sympathy. I was truly touched with Sheryl's sympathetic words.
Now I know that there is not much hope for a local group of supporters and now turn to google with hope. I never realise that UK has quite a lot of online support.
Sheryl seems to know and understand of the imbalance well and hit right on the point. It is a recurring scenario with patients feeling high and confident of not needing professional help and then she would feel low, very low, a few days later. I have found a way to counter the patient's resistance by calling for the mother's past devotion and sacrifice which hit at her soft spot and lowed down her resistance. But it was traumatic for long hours to convince her right in the middle of the night.
I also have read simon's thread and sympathise with his sufferings which I know of the quantum. I am looking forward to his report on this one and only private hospital which I hope he had used the facilities. I have a feeling that it should be good since it is new and struggling to survive. Somehow, from his description of the wife's conduct, I do not think his wife's suffering is that of bipolar but more as a personal trait.
I have reasonable amount of experience with many Thai psychiatrists and am able to conclude that except for one doctor those I have been dealing with were reasonable and able to rectify the episode of this high and low mood. I have got the feeling that the good ones stationed once a week at the major private hospitals, Bumrungrad, Bangkok Christian, Bangkok Nursing Home, St. Louis, Bangkok General. The one disappointment I experienced was at one suburban hospital. My daughter conclude that the best she had the care of was one American lady psychiatrist in Boston who really guided her to attain her academic qualification.
-
wpcoe,
thanks, points taken.
Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View
in Pattaya
Posted
ThaiBob,
You got the wrong end of the stick.
First, the aggrieved parties did not accuse the City Hall of any corruption. They took the City Hall to the Administrative Court because they sincerely believed with no malice that the City Hall's building permit issued to a developer to build a building was in breach of the law. Since the building will be higher than the law allows.
Second, the Court gave a judgement in April agreeing with the claimants of their bona fide grievances and temporarily issued an order to stop any further construction. The Court set the date for the next hearing in November, 2007 to hear of the City Hall's defence.
Third, after the due process, the Court can either agree with the City Hall or the claimants depending on the position of the proposed building and interpretation of the law. It is agreed that there is doubt either way. The due process is to allow fairness to both parties.
With that background, you think there could be a countersuit if the Court favours the City Hall. Hardly likely, since the Court has already judged that the claimants have got their rights to at least stop the construction while the Court is in process of the case. It is not frequent for the Court to issue an injunction. The injunction has a strong implication that the claimants have got their points.
The claimants purely relied on their rights to defend their legal rights of ownership. Now they suspected that their rights are now being encroached because of the City Hall's action.
I think the threat of countersuits is a red herring, just to tell the claimants to cool down and regard those claimants as nuisance. Another aim is to re-energise the condominium market in Pataya where their building positions could also be dubious. Yes, the claimants may not know it but there is a lot of dole involved.
EGAT was also stopped with the Court's injunction from selling their shares to the public only a few weeks before shares offering to the public. A few months after that injunction, the Court decided in favour of the claimants and viewed the privatising process was not in accordance with the laws.
Not that this case will follow that EGAT's pattern. It now hangs on the strength of the City Hall's defence and the claimants' lawyer countering with facts of within 200 metres and the intention of the law.