Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[Artisan]

How about a new topic.........."Stopstopvt7"?

[stopvt7]

How about a new topic.........."Stopstopvt7"?

Why did VT7 stop construction? Because “Thailand is a country of laws”!

[wpcoe]

"Thank you very much for your Email dated 28th May 2007 and the trust you put in our law firm.

The information you were given is not to be found in one law or ministerial regulation. It is part of different laws (mainly the Building Control Act of 1978 and amendments). Moreover, you have to take a lot of specific points into consideration when it comes to determine the application of the 45 degree angle. For example, you need information about this specific plot of land which is in most cases archived at the Land Department. Please be advised, that there are a lot of things to be considered and even if the land in question is located close to Jomtien Complex is does not necessarily means that the same regulations will apply. This has to be carefully and in a time consuming manner researched before any proceedings are made. Therefore a general answer to your question is not possible."

Somehow, I have the feeling that this 45 degree building profile is just a lot of smoke and mirrors with no real substance or legal basis to it. I would have thought that it was a very easy parameter to confirm and I can't understand why it should be land or location dependent. On the face of it, it appears that a developer could build at any profile after 200 metres from mid-water mark!!!

Do even the Jomtien Complex towers conform to a 45 degree profile restriction?

[Artisan]

How about a new topic.........."Stopstopvt7"?

Why did VT7 stop construction? Because “Thailand is a country of laws”!

Yes stopvt7, you've said that often enough and you're right but it's certainly not a country of justice and that's quite different......... and you might be finding that out in a few months. There are many of us who, unlike yourself, are long-timers in Thailand and who could verify this also.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Artisan

[thebounder]

How about a new topic.........."Stopstopvt7"?

Why did VT7 stop construction? Because “Thailand is a country of laws”!

The reason they stopped construction, quoting directly from the judgment you provided is as follows

"if the construction of the building under dispute was still being carried out and in the end the court issued a cancellation of the building permit as brought forward by the 10 plaint makers it may be difficult to heal the troubles or damage to the 10 plaint makers at that time."

The key word here is "if". Prior to this extract they say they have to look very carefully at the questions of where the measurement should start from and what is the correct distance.

So, put simply, they have to examine the questions raised carefully, which will take time. If there was no injunction, by the time they have finished, the building will be already significantly built and thus it will be a great deal harder then to rectify the damage. Therefore, they are basically stopping any further damage from happening until they decide who is right and who is wrong.

This is entirely typical for injunctive relief. The Court's assessment has as much, if not more, to do with stopping damage that would be hard to rectify than it has to do with the actual merits of the case. Generally if a plaintiff can show a decent prima facie case they should get the injunction.

Maybe the plaintiffs have an exceptionally strong case, I don't know. But the simple fact that an injunction was granted provides very limited indication of the Court's assessment of the merits of the case.

[OhdLover]

Apart from everyting already mentioned, Thais just don't like farangs interfering with their laws and business.

Whether it's right or not, at least it's understandable.

Just think about all those families of the construction workers that don't get paid now while the construction stopped, and compare that to 10 farangs (as far as I know none of the Thai owners are with them, probably because they know the outcome already and don't want to face huge claims aftr VT7 has won the case) complainting that they lose their sea view (since only that is the case, not the fact that/if the building is too close to the sea)....

This is not the "Thailand is a country of laws"-aspect of this case, it's just practical thinking that will point to the soon to be expected outcome.

[stopvt7]

How about a new topic.........."Stopstopvt7"?

Why did VT7 stop construction? Because "Thailand is a country of laws"!

The reason they stopped construction, quoting directly from the judgment you provided is as follows

"if the construction of the building under dispute was still being carried out and in the end the court issued a cancellation of the building permit as brought forward by the 10 plaint makers it may be difficult to heal the troubles or damage to the 10 plaint makers at that time."

The key word here is "if". Prior to this extract they say they have to look very carefully at the questions of where the measurement should start from and what is the correct distance.

So, put simply, they have to examine the questions raised carefully, which will take time. If there was no injunction, by the time they have finished, the building will be already significantly built and thus it will be a great deal harder then to rectify the damage. Therefore, they are basically stopping any further damage from happening until they decide who is right and who is wrong.

This is entirely typical for injunctive relief. The Court's assessment has as much, if not more, to do with stopping damage that would be hard to rectify than it has to do with the actual merits of the case. Generally if a plaintiff can show a decent prima facie case they should get the injunction.

Maybe the plaintiffs have an exceptionally strong case, I don't know. But the simple fact that an injunction was granted provides very limited indication of the Court's assessment of the merits of the case.

thebounder well thought out! Yes this is a strong case.

Also think about the other side of the coin. If the court allowed VT to continual construction it could be much more costly. The court has ruled to enforce Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 but has not clarified where the measurement should start?

Now VT7 will lose less bahts. Because they will not build VT7 as you know it.

Sorry is my confidence gloating?

[thebounder]

How about a new topic.........."Stopstopvt7"?

Why did VT7 stop construction? Because "Thailand is a country of laws"!

The reason they stopped construction, quoting directly from the judgment you provided is as follows

"if the construction of the building under dispute was still being carried out and in the end the court issued a cancellation of the building permit as brought forward by the 10 plaint makers it may be difficult to heal the troubles or damage to the 10 plaint makers at that time."

The key word here is "if". Prior to this extract they say they have to look very carefully at the questions of where the measurement should start from and what is the correct distance.

So, put simply, they have to examine the questions raised carefully, which will take time. If there was no injunction, by the time they have finished, the building will be already significantly built and thus it will be a great deal harder then to rectify the damage. Therefore, they are basically stopping any further damage from happening until they decide who is right and who is wrong.

This is entirely typical for injunctive relief. The Court's assessment has as much, if not more, to do with stopping damage that would be hard to rectify than it has to do with the actual merits of the case. Generally if a plaintiff can show a decent prima facie case they should get the injunction.

Maybe the plaintiffs have an exceptionally strong case, I don't know. But the simple fact that an injunction was granted provides very limited indication of the Court's assessment of the merits of the case.

thebounder well thought out! Yes this is a strong case.

Also think about the other side of the coin. If the court allowed VT to continual construction it could be much more costly. The court has ruled to enforce Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 but has not clarified where the measurement should start?

Now VT7 will lose less bahts. Because they will not build VT7 as you know it.

Sorry is my confidence gloating?

Please read my post more carefully, you have misunderstood it, as indeed you have misunderstood the judgment. The Court has not ruled to enforce the Regulation you refer to, not at all. They haven't ruled on anything. They have just said that while they consider the situation, it is most sensible that work doesn't continue. Once you actually get your head around that, perhaps you will gloat less.

In all honesty, whatever the various laws say, personally I would be surprised if VT7 doesn't eventually get built as originally planned. I may of course be wrong, but years of living in Thailand lead me to believe that will be the eventual outcome. It is not an attack on you or your colleagues, just a belief that that is the way things work over here.

[stopvt7]

thebounder said: Please read my post more carefully, you have misunderstood it, as indeed you have misunderstood the judgment. The Court has not ruled to enforce the Regulation you refer to, not at all. They haven't ruled on anything. They have just said that while they consider the situation, it is most sensible that work doesn't continue. Once you actually get your head around that, perhaps you will gloat less.

From the court order: “Therefore in the deliberation the court found it necessary to make a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, which point the building under dispute was at the correct distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations or not, which, the court shall require appropriate time to do the checking. But, if the construction of the building under dispute was still being carried out and in the end the court issued a cancellation of the building permit as brought forward by the 10 plaint makers it may be difficult to heal the troubles or damage to the 10 plaint makers at that time. The case thus has sufficient reasons to evoke the use of the measure or method of protection temporarily prior to the judgement on the case brought forward by the 10 plaint makers.”

I have a copy of survey done by city hall make when certifying their building permit. It shows VT7 started at 105 metres from mean tide level. All so I have copy of VT7 plans. With these documents it doesn’t take rocket sciences to figure out the VT7 will not be built. Now the court has the same documents and must decide where the measurements start.

From the court order: “The court interrogated both parties in the consideration stage of setting a measure or a method of temporary protection prior to passing judgement on the case brought by the 10 plaint makers and received further facts as follows:

Mr. Amnat Thiengtham, the recipient of Power of Attorney from all 10 plaint makers gave a statement that the plaint receiver 2 constructed the building from the point away from the mean sea level, namely the lowest level at ebb tide only about 100 m. not 200 m. in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479.”

Let me add when interviewing a legal team. A Bangkok law professor advice use that he never “saw such a stronger legal case for Admin Court!

Read the court case and the court is upholding Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479.Why is the court making “a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9" if they are not enforcing the Regulation?

Again by quoting the court I’m gloating!

[Irene]

thebounder said: Please read my post more carefully, you have misunderstood it, as indeed you have misunderstood the judgment. The Court has not ruled to enforce the Regulation you refer to, not at all. They haven't ruled on anything. They have just said that while they consider the situation, it is most sensible that work doesn't continue. Once you actually get your head around that, perhaps you will gloat less.

From the court order: "Therefore in the deliberation the court found it necessary to make a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, which point the building under dispute was at the correct distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations or not, which, the court shall require appropriate time to do the checking. But, if the construction of the building under dispute was still being carried out and in the end the court issued a cancellation of the building permit as brought forward by the 10 plaint makers it may be difficult to heal the troubles or damage to the 10 plaint makers at that time. The case thus has sufficient reasons to evoke the use of the measure or method of protection temporarily prior to the judgement on the case brought forward by the 10 plaint makers."

I have a copy of survey done by city hall make when certifying their building permit. It shows VT7 started at 105 metres from mean tide level. All so I have copy of VT7 plans. With these documents it doesn't take rocket sciences to figure out the VT7 will not be built. Now the court has the same documents and must decide where the measurements start.

From the court order: "The court interrogated both parties in the consideration stage of setting a measure or a method of temporary protection prior to passing judgement on the case brought by the 10 plaint makers and received further facts as follows:

Mr. Amnat Thiengtham, the recipient of Power of Attorney from all 10 plaint makers gave a statement that the plaint receiver 2 constructed the building from the point away from the mean sea level, namely the lowest level at ebb tide only about 100 m. not 200 m. in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479."

Let me add when interviewing a legal team. A Bangkok law professor advice use that he never "saw such a stronger legal case for Admin Court!

Read the court case and the court is upholding Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479.Why is the court making "a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9" if they are not enforcing the Regulation?

Again by quoting the court I'm gloating!

stopvt7,

Forgive me for being blunt. I admire your efforts and partial success so far. But like some of the others, I find it unusual for the affected parties to come out with all sorts of inside knowledge that is quite open to the City Hall and vt7 to learn and find holes to defend their case. If you follow all other legal disputes whether in Thailand or outside Thailand, the affected parties are always told by their lawyers to keep low-profile and quiet on merits of their cases. Quiet confidence is the best policy of all legal disputes.

Jeff Skilling of Enron took the stand at the Congress enquiry instead of relying on the fifth amendments, he was subsequently judged guilty and sentenced for more than 20 years partly for what he said at the Congress. He gave a lot of ammunitions to the prosecutors to present to the jury of his statements.

Furthermore, some of your observations do not jive with the Thai legal system and gave me the impression that you understand the situation in a piece-meal manner. I didn't bother to read all the details and related points as presented by you to this board since it is not this board who is going to decide the case. The lawyers' presentation to the judges is the crucial juncture. Sometimes, cases are obvious that the plaintiff should win but because of poor presentation of evidences, things could be otherwise. By that stage, you would blame the justice system. I am afraid todate you have opened too many holes for me as your supporters to feel more than 50% chance of winning. I gave 80% chance of your winning when I first read this thread. Now I give as an even chance.

I hope so far you have not prejudiced your case unduly. Haven't your lawyers advise you to keep quiet.

[Tammi]

Forgive me for being blunt. I admire your efforts and partial success so far. But like some of the others, I find it unusual for the affected parties to come out with all sorts of inside knowledge that is quite open to the City Hall and vt7 to learn and find holes to defend their case. If you follow all other legal disputes whether in Thailand or outside Thailand, the affected parties are always told by their lawyers to keep low-profile and quiet on merits of their cases. Quiet confidence is the best policy of all legal disputes.

Jeff Skilling of Enron took the stand at the Congress enquiry instead of relying on the fifth amendments, he was subsequently judged guilty and sentenced for more than 20 years partly for what he said at the Congress. He gave a lot of ammunitions to the prosecutors to present to the jury of his statements.

Furthermore, some of your observations do not jive with the Thai legal system and gave me the impression that you understand the situation in a piece-meal manner. I didn't bother to read all the details and related points as presented by you to this board since it is not this board who is going to decide the case. The lawyers' presentation to the judges is the crucial juncture. Sometimes, cases are obvious that the plaintiff should win but because of poor presentation of evidences, things could be otherwise. By that stage, you would blame the justice system. I am afraid todate you have opened too many holes for me as your supporters to feel more than 50% chance of winning. I gave 80% chance of your winning when I first read this thread. Now I give as an even chance.

I hope so far you have not prejudiced your case unduly. Haven't your lawyers advise you to keep quiet.

Irene, If I remember correctly both you and I advised stopVT7 quite a while ago to keep a lower profile and I think that worked for awhile but then, it seems to me, some newcomers started posting and stopVT7 began posting again to answer them. I agree with you that VT7 should stop posting and be confident that the lawyers' presentation and the relevant Laws will win the case. I still give Jomthien Complex's plaintiffs 100% chance of winning.

In the meantime we await City Hall's decision re Regatta - we should know very soon. Will City Hall rescind the permit or will Jomthien Condotel have to take its case to the Administrative Court?

StopVT7, when you see replies to this post of mine that make fun of my belief that you will win the case please ignore them, don't answer.

[stopvt7]

“I’m amused about being call a gloat! I don’t wish misfortune on anyone but why shouldn’t I stand up for the JCC rights under Thai law. I don’t think I’m gloating but I feel confidence in the out come of the Admin Court decision. Of course thing could change but I don’t see any signs of it happening.” Sorry for quoting my self!

Any info I share are from the court documents and city hall and VT7 lawyers have the same. I understand much more which I can not share but I do believe Thailand Administrative Court is working as it was set up to do. Many persons are thinking about criminal or civil courts when advising me. But my confidence comes from read many public records including the law establishing the court and the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. So call me naive!.

Section 276: Administrative Courts have the powers to try and adjudicate cases of dispute between a State agency, State enterprise, local government organization, or State official under the superintendence or supervision of the Government on one part and a private individual on the other part, or between a State agency, State enterprise, local government organization, or State official under the superintendence or supervision of the Government on one part and another such agency, enterprise, organization or official on the other part, which is the dispute as a consequence of the act or omission of the act that must be, according to the law, performed by such State agency, State enterprise, local government organization, or State official, or as a consequence of the act or omission of the act under the responsibility of such State agency, State enterprise, local government organization or State official in the performance of duties under the law, as provided by law.

There shall be the Supreme Administrative Court and Administrative Courts of First Instance, and there may also be the Appellate Administrative

Look! I think highly of this Administrative Court system and wish we had it in USA. I would be joining or lead a group to enforce the emigration laws by suing our government to enforce the law.

I love these add on face special this guy! >

[Tammi]

“I’m amused about being call a gloat! I don’t wish misfortune on anyone but why shouldn’t I stand up for the JCC rights under Thai law. I don’t think I’m gloating but I feel confidence in the out come of the Admin Court decision. Of course thing could change but I don’t see any signs of it happening.” Sorry for quoting my self!

Any info I share are from the court documents and city hall and VT7 lawyers have the same. I understand much more which I can not share but I do believe Thailand Administrative Court is working as it was set up to do. Many persons are thinking about criminal or civil courts when advising me. But my confidence comes from read many public records including the law establishing the court and the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. So call me naive!.

Section 276: Administrative Courts have the powers to try and adjudicate cases of dispute between a State agency, State enterprise, local government organization, or State official under the superintendence or supervision of the Government on one part and a private individual on the other part, or between a State agency, State enterprise, local government organization, or State official under the superintendence or supervision of the Government on one part and another such agency, enterprise, organization or official on the other part, which is the dispute as a consequence of the act or omission of the act that must be, according to the law, performed by such State agency, State enterprise, local government organization, or State official, or as a consequence of the act or omission of the act under the responsibility of such State agency, State enterprise, local government organization or State official in the performance of duties under the law, as provided by law.

There shall be the Supreme Administrative Court and Administrative Courts of First Instance, and there may also be the Appellate Administrative

Look! I think highly of this Administrative Court system and wish we had it in USA. I would be joining or lead a group to enforce the emigration laws by suing our government to enforce the law.

I love these add on face special this guy! >

Thank you for this information. I wanted to post the same info but don't have the time to do the research and put all the words together.

Hopefully a lot of people will now be less confused.

[thebounder]

thebounder said: Please read my post more carefully, you have misunderstood it, as indeed you have misunderstood the judgment. The Court has not ruled to enforce the Regulation you refer to, not at all. They haven't ruled on anything. They have just said that while they consider the situation, it is most sensible that work doesn't continue. Once you actually get your head around that, perhaps you will gloat less.

From the court order: “Therefore in the deliberation the court found it necessary to make a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, which point the building under dispute was at the correct distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations or not, which, the court shall require appropriate time to do the checking. But, if the construction of the building under dispute was still being carried out and in the end the court issued a cancellation of the building permit as brought forward by the 10 plaint makers it may be difficult to heal the troubles or damage to the 10 plaint makers at that time. The case thus has sufficient reasons to evoke the use of the measure or method of protection temporarily prior to the judgement on the case brought forward by the 10 plaint makers.”

I have a copy of survey done by city hall make when certifying their building permit. It shows VT7 started at 105 metres from mean tide level. All so I have copy of VT7 plans. With these documents it doesn’t take rocket sciences to figure out the VT7 will not be built. Now the court has the same documents and must decide where the measurements start.

From the court order: “The court interrogated both parties in the consideration stage of setting a measure or a method of temporary protection prior to passing judgement on the case brought by the 10 plaint makers and received further facts as follows:

Mr. Amnat Thiengtham, the recipient of Power of Attorney from all 10 plaint makers gave a statement that the plaint receiver 2 constructed the building from the point away from the mean sea level, namely the lowest level at ebb tide only about 100 m. not 200 m. in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479.”

Let me add when interviewing a legal team. A Bangkok law professor advice use that he never “saw such a stronger legal case for Admin Court!

Read the court case and the court is upholding Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479.Why is the court making “a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9" if they are not enforcing the Regulation?

Again by quoting the court I’m gloating!

You said that the Court has ruled to enforce the Ministerial Regulation. No they have not. They have not made a final ruling on anything. They have granted an interim injunction pending their final judgment at the final hearing. Please try harder to understand, it is really not difficult.

[Artisan]

Irene, If I remember correctly both you and I advised stopVT7 quite a while ago to keep a lower profile and I think that worked for awhile but then, it seems to me, some newcomers started posting and stopVT7 began posting again to answer them..

Tammi............many posters have advised stopVT7 to put a sock in it! You don't hold that particular honour alone. Also, please explain your meaning of the word "newcomer" as used in your posting. Thank you

[stopvt7]

thebounder “You said that the Court has ruled to enforce the Ministerial Regulation. No they have not. They have not made a final ruling on anything. They have granted an interim injunction pending their final judgment at the final hearing. Please try harder to understand, it is really not difficult.”

I do and it great we can disagree, that what great about free speech.

From the court order: “Therefore in the deliberation the court found it necessary to make a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, which point the building under dispute was at the correct distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations or not

I said! “Read the court case and the court is upholding Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479.”

Or why else would the court making the statement “a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9" if they are not going to enforcing the Regulation?“

I been advice the court can make a final court order without having another hear!

For thoughts people who know me, they know I laugh a lot at my self! I had friends say I’m craze and that OK! Laugh a little more at my confidence it’s OK with me. I laugh a lot about my gloating!

I really like this little guy! He makes me laugh!

[thebounder]

thebounder “You said that the Court has ruled to enforce the Ministerial Regulation. No they have not. They have not made a final ruling on anything. They have granted an interim injunction pending their final judgment at the final hearing. Please try harder to understand, it is really not difficult.”

I do and it great we can disagree, that what great about free speech.

From the court order: “Therefore in the deliberation the court found it necessary to make a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, which point the building under dispute was at the correct distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations or not

I said! “Read the court case and the court is upholding Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479.”

Or why else would the court making the statement “a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9" if they are not going to enforcing the Regulation?“

I been advice the court can make a final court order without having another hear!

For thoughts people who know me, they know I laugh a lot at my self! I had friends say I’m craze and that OK! Laugh a little more at my confidence it’s OK with me. I laugh a lot about my gloating!

I really like this little guy! He makes me laugh!

The interim judgment you provided also records the following,

"Mr. Pricha Dachamualvalvit, the recipient of Power of Attorney from plaint receiver 2 gave a statement that the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) and Issue 9 (B.E.2521) issued pursuant to the meaning of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 should not currently be in force."

So it seems there will probably be an issue before the Court as to whether the regulation is currently in force.

In all honesty, the English translation you posted is poor quality and actually makes little sense, but a simple and fair interpretation seems to be as follows,

The plaintiffs have an arguable case into which the Court will now investigate more deeply.

While they are making that investigation, if they let building work continue, by the time they have finished, if they find for the plaintiffs it will be harder at that time to make good the damage.

Therefore, it is sensible to stop the building work pending completion of their investigation.

They have not ruled to enforce your pet regulation or anything else. If they had, they would have said so very clearly. Just because they talk about measurements does not mean there cannot be arguments as to whether the regulation is relevant to this matter.

They have just said it is sensible to stop work until they make their decision. That is what interim injunctions are usually all about and you have to be very careful, as a plaintiff/applicant, not to read anything more into it than that.

As I have said before, I don't know whether or not you will succeed. I certainly wish you luck. However, an interim injunction provides very little guidance as to the eventual outcome of the case.

[Artisan]

thebounder “You said that the Court has ruled to enforce the Ministerial Regulation. No they have not. They have not made a final ruling on anything. They have granted an interim injunction pending their final judgment at the final hearing. Please try harder to understand, it is really not difficult.”

From the court order: “Therefore in the deliberation the court found it necessary to make a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, which point the building under dispute was at the correct distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations or not

I said! “Read the court case and the court is upholding Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479.”

Or why else would the court making the statement “a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9" if they are not going to enforcing the Regulation?“

As a previous poster on this topic has said, I don't think that stopvt7's mother tongue is English. If it was, perhaps he would understand the subtle nuances of the English language. The Bounder is right, the Court has not enforced any Regulation yet.

I believe the word "pursuant" might be the cause of his mindset. The Court is not "pursuing", not acting upon and not prosecuting anyone....yet. No judgement has been made yet and won't be until the Court has checked that the View Talay 7 project is consistent (that's what 'pursuant' means Mr. stopvt7) with the requirements of the Building Control Act.

Any court has to confirm the facts before pronouncing a judgement......or are you guilty until proven innocent in your country Mr. stopvt7?

Come on Tammi......let's hear your views on this particular point of discussion.

[Tammi]

thebounder “You said that the Court has ruled to enforce the Ministerial Regulation. No they have not. They have not made a final ruling on anything. They have granted an interim injunction pending their final judgment at the final hearing. Please try harder to understand, it is really not difficult.”

From the court order: “Therefore in the deliberation the court found it necessary to make a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, which point the building under dispute was at the correct distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations or not

I said! “Read the court case and the court is upholding Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479.”

Or why else would the court making the statement “a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9" if they are not going to enforcing the Regulation?“

As a previous poster on this topic has said, I don't think that stopvt7's mother tongue is English. If it was, perhaps he would understand the subtle nuances of the English language. The Bounder is right, the Court has not enforced any Regulation yet.

I believe the word "pursuant" might be the cause of his mindset. The Court is not "pursuing", not acting upon and not prosecuting anyone....yet. No judgement has been made yet and won't be until the Court has checked that the View Talay 7 project is consistent (that's what 'pursuant' means Mr. stopvt7) with the requirements of the Building Control Act.

Any court has to confirm the facts before pronouncing a judgement......or are you guilty until proven innocent in your country Mr. stopvt7?

Come on Tammi......let's hear your views on this particular point of discussion.

I am sure Jomthien Complex Condominium's lawyers at AsiaLaw Works have read the laws every which way and the Admin Court decided to accept the case. Now the Admin Court has to make a decision pursuant to the Laws.

(Pursuant - proceeding from and conformable to; in accordance with.)

As I have said before we have to wait now for the Admin Court to give us its judgement. Who knows - it might find half a dozen loopholes that will allow VT7 to be built.

As I have also said before Hua Hin has stopped issuing permits for hi-rises within the 200 meters until the outcome of VT7 case is known and I would think its lawyers have looked very carefully at the Laws.

So AsiaLaw Works, The Admin Court, and Hua Hin are all taking this case seriously.

There's nothing more to be said about JCC and VT7 by me, you, or anybody else, until the Admin Court makes its judgement.

But we are still waiting to hear what reply Pattaya City Hall will send to Jomthien Condotel re Regatta.

[sohn]

This is starting to look like a pissing contest

But think i know what the outcome will be.

[ThaiBob]

.....

But we are still waiting to hear what reply Pattaya City Hall will send to Jomthien Condotel re Regatta.

Why wait? Do you really think Pattaya City Hall will reverse themselves with the VT7 case still pending? Organize 10 foreigners and file a legal action with Administrative Court just like the JCC complaintants did.

[Tammi]

.....

But we are still waiting to hear what reply Pattaya City Hall will send to Jomthien Condotel re Regatta.

Why wait? Do you really think Pattaya City Hall will reverse themselves with the VT7 case still pending? Organize 10 foreigners and file a legal action with Administrative Court just like the JCC complaintants did.

Last I heard Jomthien Condotel had 200 signatures and that 'proper' route was first City Hall and then the Admin Court.

[stopvt7]

.....

But we are still waiting to hear what reply Pattaya City Hall will send to Jomthien Condotel re Regatta.

Why wait? Do you really think Pattaya City Hall will reverse themselves with the VT7 case still pending? Organize 10 foreigners and file a legal action with Administrative Court just like the JCC complaintants did.

ThaiBob writes: “Why wait? Do you really think Pattaya City Hall will reverse themselves with the VT7 case still pending? Organize 10 foreigners and file a legal action with Administrative Court just like the JCC complainants did.”

Because administrative law requires the complaint party to first notifying the government which is acting questionable. Which give then a chance to correct their action? If you show the government is acting wrongly and they do not correct this action then you can start a legal action in Administrative Court. What was the questionable act? Issuing a building permit in violation of Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 and others.

So now we wait and see what city hall will do? Special since Pattaya City Hall agree at the Rayong court hearing that Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 is the law! But could not agree where to start the measurement or how to measure the 200 metres.

PRESS RELEASE

On May 22nd, 2007, the co-owners of Jomtien Condotel and Village filed a formal legal request with the Mayor of Pattaya City, to halt the construction of an eight floor building directly in front of their property on Dongtan Beach, Jomtien.

The planned project by Indochine Asset Management Co. Ltd, has already received a building permit from the City and construction is slated to begin June 1st, 2007

The co-owners have filed a “Request for justice in the building permit appeal” on the following grounds;

1. Lack of arrangements made for the electrical, lighting, safety, drainage and waste-water systems, which could adversely affect those living nearby.

2. Lack of compliance with Ministerial Regulations pursuant to the Buildings Control Act, regarding safety of excavations near roads and other residences.

3. Lack of compliance with Ministerial Regulations pursuant to the Buildings Control Act, concerning the stipulated area of 200 meters forbidding construction of buildings over 14 m. in height.

4. Lack of compliance with other Ministerial Regulations relating to construction of buildings adjacent to narrow private roads.

5. Lack of an adequate analysis of the building’s impact on the surrounding environment.Over 200 co-owners have signed a petition objecting to the development as proposed. They plan to approach the Chonburi Land Office and the Environmental Investigation Agency in Bangkok. The newly elected Management Committees have been instructed to seek justice in the Administrative Court if necessary.

They will not need 10 co-owners to act because the Jomtien Condotel Juristic Manager could file on the behalf of their management committee for the co-owners..

It sounds like they have an exceptionally strong case!

But I using my arrogant, dismissive attitude in making a conclusion and answering ThaiBob

I really like this little guy! He makes me laugh!

[ThaiBob]

.....

But we are still waiting to hear what reply Pattaya City Hall will send to Jomthien Condotel re Regatta.

Why wait? Do you really think Pattaya City Hall will reverse themselves with the VT7 case still pending? Organize 10 foreigners and file a legal action with Administrative Court just like the JCC complaintants did.

ThaiBob writes: “Why wait? Do you really think Pattaya City Hall will reverse themselves with the VT7 case still pending? Organize 10 foreigners and file a legal action with Administrative Court just like the JCC complainants did.”

Because administrative law requires the complaint party to first notifying the government which is acting questionable. Which give then a chance to correct their action? If you show the government is acting wrongly and they do not correct this action then you can start a legal action in Administrative Court. What was the questionable act? Issuing a building permit in violation of Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 and others.

So now we wait and see what city hall will do? Special since Pattaya City Hall agree at the Rayong court hearing that Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 is the law! But could not agree where to start the measurement or how to measure the 200 metres.

PRESS RELEASE

On May 22nd, 2007, the co-owners of Jomtien Condotel and Village filed a formal legal request with the Mayor of Pattaya City, to halt the construction of an eight floor building directly in front of their property on Dongtan Beach, Jomtien.

The planned project by Indochine Asset Management Co. Ltd, has already received a building permit from the City and construction is slated to begin June 1st, 2007

The co-owners have filed a “Request for justice in the building permit appeal” on the following grounds;

1. Lack of arrangements made for the electrical, lighting, safety, drainage and waste-water systems, which could adversely affect those living nearby.

2. Lack of compliance with Ministerial Regulations pursuant to the Buildings Control Act, regarding safety of excavations near roads and other residences.

3. Lack of compliance with Ministerial Regulations pursuant to the Buildings Control Act, concerning the stipulated area of 200 meters forbidding construction of buildings over 14 m. in height.

4. Lack of compliance with other Ministerial Regulations relating to construction of buildings adjacent to narrow private roads.

5. Lack of an adequate analysis of the building’s impact on the surrounding environment.Over 200 co-owners have signed a petition objecting to the development as proposed. They plan to approach the Chonburi Land Office and the Environmental Investigation Agency in Bangkok. The newly elected Management Committees have been instructed to seek justice in the Administrative Court if necessary.

They will not need 10 co-owners to act because the Jomtien Condotel Juristic Manager could file on the behalf of their management committee for the co-owners..

It sounds like they have an exceptionally strong case!

But I using my arrogant, dismissive attitude in making a conclusion and answering ThaiBob

I really like this little guy! He makes me laugh!

How long do the JomTien CondoTel owners have to wait for the City Hall's response? I think we know what their reply will be. Couldn't the Regatta begin construction on June 1? I thought I read somewhere in this thread that 10 complaintants were needed to file an action before the Administrative Court.

Edited June 2, 2007 by ThaiBob

[stopvt7]

Their a letter or complaint protocol in the Admin Law of usual 12 weeks before you can file a legal case in Admin Court against a government agency. There are some condition which it can be filed faster.

I real don’t know in Jomtien Condotel and Village case how long? But they have started!

If The Regatta is smart they will wait for city hall letters and the Administrative Court decision?

[stopvt7]

FYI: We received a court document which claims that the total sale price of VT7 will be 1,100,000,000Bt. or about $32 million dollars. I question if is this number is right? Because my understanding VT7 will have 912 condo units.

1.1 billion divided 912 equals 1,206,140Bt per condo unite. I was told a single 48sq meter unit started much higher?

Can any shed more light on this?

[ThaiBob]

FYI: We received a court document which claims that the total sale price of VT7 will be 1,100,000,000Bt. or about $32 million dollars. I question if is this number is right? Because my understanding VT7 will have 912 condo units.

1.1 billion divided 912 equals 1,206,140Bt per condo unite. I was told a single 48sq meter unit started much higher?

Can any shed more light on this?

The first selling prices for a middle floor (say 15th) were about 53000 per sqm for a corner unit and 48,000 per sqm for a studio (48 sqm). There have been 3 or 4 prices increases since then.

[laurus77]

SO, HOW ABOUT SITUATION NOW, HAVE SOMETHING CHANGED?

[loopaimod]

Just a quick update. Seems my friend who purchased from Indochine in Regent Pratumnak Condominium (same developer as Reggatta) is still awaiting closure on his purchase. Developer is not honouring his words and returning the knowingly over invoiced monies!! Been weeks now and still nothing. Seems the agents that sold are also struggeling to get any information as well. He has talked to a few and all agents who sold there have the same problem with developer. Word is that Indochine are totally broke and cannot find funds to payout. Hopefully this means they cannot fund the Reggatta project. Suppose time will tell. Noticed Reggatta did not start construction June 1st as promised?

[brooklynbridge]

Just a quick update. Seems my friend who purchased from Indochine in Regent Pratumnak Condominium (same developer as Reggatta) is still awaiting closure on his purchase. Developer is not honouring his words and returning the knowingly over invoiced monies!! Been weeks now and still nothing. Seems the agents that sold are also struggeling to get any information as well. He has talked to a few and all agents who sold there have the same problem with developer. Word is that Indochine are totally broke and cannot find funds to payout. Hopefully this means they cannot fund the Reggatta project. Suppose time will tell. Noticed Reggatta did not start construction June 1st as promised?

Couldn't happen to a nicer developer!