Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[tropiccapricorn]

Nevertheless, where No. 3 (8) under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Ampur Bang Lamung Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface.

The way it is written here, it seems clear that the point of reference for measuring is MSL.

So how on earth can somebody suddenly get the idea to change that point to somewhere out

into the sea. If the seaside should come into the picture (which it obviously never ment to)

it would mean 200m water- and 200m landside to be protected.

[Tammi]

Walked past VT7 a few days ago and counted 7 or 8 stories. Is that over 14 meters? What is latest on the Appeal by JCC group of co-owners?

[Wiresok]

I have mixed feelings about all this.

I bought a condo in vt5 because it was in a nice location , by the sea,and reasonably priced,perfect for when I retire.

At that stage no mention of vt7 or vt5 legality issues from view talay.

Now that vt7 has come along my views will be somewhat limited but it makes vt5 legal.

Having followed the legal issues my own view is that vt5 and 7 are not legal,by the intent of issue 9,but thats with the court.

I have just visited Jomtien and I cannot understand what view talay are playing at.

What sort of organisation are they,and what are their motives, to put vt7 where it is,and at 27 floors?

This area is going to end up a small Manhattan,they are going to create a horrible little cement city enclave from what could have been such a global advertisment for the view talay brand and organisation.

The negative publicity about all this must be harming them commercially both in Thailand and worldwide.

They must have lost loads of sales in vt5,vt7,vt8 marina,etc,prime land plots, because of this.

Indeed I myself have shunned them since and will never consider them in the future,you just cannot trust view talay.

I will buy my retirement place from a reputable developer,and put my vt5 condo to low cost rental.

But if vt7 is declared legal,I suppose the legality issue of vt5 goes away.

[ThaiBob]

I have mixed feelings about all this.

I bought a condo in vt5 because it was in a nice location , by the sea,and reasonably priced,perfect for when I retire.

At that stage no mention of vt7 or vt5 legality issues from view talay.

Now that vt7 has come along my views will be somewhat limited but it makes vt5 legal.

Having followed the legal issues my own view is that vt5 and 7 are not legal,by the intent of issue 9,but thats with the court.

I have just visited Jomtien and I cannot understand what view talay are playing at.

What sort of organisation are they,and what are their motives, to put vt7 where it is,and at 27 floors?

This area is going to end up a small Manhattan,they are going to create a horrible little cement city enclave from what could have been such a global advertisment for the view talay brand and organisation.

The negative publicity about all this must be harming them commercially both in Thailand and worldwide.

They must have lost loads of sales in vt5,vt7,vt8 marina,etc,prime land plots, because of this.

Indeed I myself have shunned them since and will never consider them in the future,you just cannot trust view talay.

I will buy my retirement place from a reputable developer,and put my vt5 condo to low cost rental.

But if vt7 is declared legal,I suppose the legality issue of vt5 goes away.

VT7 is legal, so is VT5, VT3, JomTien Plaza etc., etc., etc. I would be less concerned about VT7 blocking your views but rather another highrise being built adjacent to VT5. VT denies owning the land but I bet they eventually will and build VT13(?). The only negative publicity is here on TV and the typical condo buyer will know little about this VT7 saga and I doubt it will have little impact on sales. Rather than worrying about threatened views, if I was a VT5 owner my primary concern would be to organize the condo owners and vote VT out as the juristic person and management company. They have a history of mis-management at VT1 and VT2 where condo owners there gave them the boot. The new management has righted the ship there and I suggest VT5 does the same before it is too late.

[lookat]

I have mixed feelings about all this.

I bought a condo in vt5 because it was in a nice location , by the sea,and reasonably priced,perfect for when I retire.

At that stage no mention of vt7 or vt5 legality issues from view talay.

Now that vt7 has come along my views will be somewhat limited but it makes vt5 legal.

Having followed the legal issues my own view is that vt5 and 7 are not legal,by the intent of issue 9,but thats with the court.

I have just visited Jomtien and I cannot understand what view talay are playing at.

What sort of organisation are they,and what are their motives, to put vt7 where it is,and at 27 floors?

This area is going to end up a small Manhattan,they are going to create a horrible little cement city enclave from what could have been such a global advertisment for the view talay brand and organisation.

The negative publicity about all this must be harming them commercially both in Thailand and worldwide.

They must have lost loads of sales in vt5,vt7,vt8 marina,etc,prime land plots, because of this.

Indeed I myself have shunned them since and will never consider them in the future,you just cannot trust view talay.

I will buy my retirement place from a reputable developer,and put my vt5 condo to low cost rental.

But if vt7 is declared legal,I suppose the legality issue of vt5 goes away.

VT7 is legal, so is VT5, VT3, JomTien Plaza etc., etc., etc. I would be less concerned about VT7 blocking your views but rather another highrise being built adjacent to VT5. VT denies owning the land but I bet they eventually will and build VT13(?). The only negative publicity is here on TV and the typical condo buyer will know little about this VT7 saga and I doubt it will have little impact on sales. Rather than worrying about threatened views, if I was a VT5 owner my primary concern would be to organize the condo owners and vote VT out as the juristic person and management company. They have a history of mis-management at VT1 and VT2 where condo owners there gave them the boot. The new management has righted the ship there and I suggest VT5 does the same before it is too late.

You can read the Appeal to Supreme Court of Administration at :

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Edited April 3, 2008 by lookat

[Tammi]

QUOTE (thaigene2 @ 2008-04-03 22:07:07)

QUOTE (quiksilva @ 2008-04-03 09:40:05)

Well look at it this way, at least it will add value to older buildings with car parks. Furthermore there is likely to be a lot fewer new condo developments within 1km of a BTS station now too.

I mean its all very well having more sellable space, but how are they going to sell condo units without car parking spaces?

You know, when I read this news report in the newspaper at breakfast - the coffee nearly snorted out my nose. It's classic Thailand isn't it?

But then I read the story about Plus Properties being required to knock down the top few floors of ELEVEN OF THEIR NEW CONDO PROJECTS -- Many already built!

What a funny place - I mean really.

_______________________________________________________________

Anyone know where this happened? Anybody know where to find the news article?

[prospero]

I have mixed feelings about all this.

I bought a condo in vt5 because it was in a nice location , by the sea,and reasonably priced,perfect for when I retire.

At that stage no mention of vt7 or vt5 legality issues from view talay.

Now that vt7 has come along my views will be somewhat limited but it makes vt5 legal.

Having followed the legal issues my own view is that vt5 and 7 are not legal,by the intent of issue 9,but thats with the court.

I have just visited Jomtien and I cannot understand what view talay are playing at.

What sort of organisation are they,and what are their motives, to put vt7 where it is,and at 27 floors?

This area is going to end up a small Manhattan,they are going to create a horrible little cement city enclave from what could have been such a global advertisment for the view talay brand and organisation.

The negative publicity about all this must be harming them commercially both in Thailand and worldwide.

They must have lost loads of sales in vt5,vt7,vt8 marina,etc,prime land plots, because of this.

Indeed I myself have shunned them since and will never consider them in the future,you just cannot trust view talay.

I will buy my retirement place from a reputable developer,and put my vt5 condo to low cost rental.

But if vt7 is declared legal,I suppose the legality issue of vt5 goes away.

VT7 is legal, so is VT5, VT3, JomTien Plaza etc., etc., etc. I would be less concerned about VT7 blocking your views but rather another highrise being built adjacent to VT5. VT denies owning the land but I bet they eventually will and build VT13(?). The only negative publicity is here on TV and the typical condo buyer will know little about this VT7 saga and I doubt it will have little impact on sales. Rather than worrying about threatened views, if I was a VT5 owner my primary concern would be to organize the condo owners and vote VT out as the juristic person and management company. They have a history of mis-management at VT1 and VT2 where condo owners there gave them the boot. The new management has righted the ship there and I suggest VT5 does the same before it is too late.

You can read the Appeal to Supreme Court of Administration at :

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Is there really any doubt that View Talay's 5 A and B will be built in that narrow sliver of land between the other VT's, if the Supreme Court rejects the appeal?

Wiresok's comparison of the area to Manhattan is unfortunate. Manhattan has many glorious skyscrapers, an urban ethos, and the infrastructure to handle density.

A more appropriate comparison might be the housing constructed in the Soviet Union in the 1950's and 60's -- or council housing in the UK. Ugly, cheaply constructed buildings with no character. I think the View Talay developer hired architects from East Berlin after the wall came down.

Edited April 4, 2008 by prospero

[Tammi]

I have mixed feelings about all this.

I bought a condo in vt5 because it was in a nice location , by the sea,and reasonably priced,perfect for when I retire.

At that stage no mention of vt7 or vt5 legality issues from view talay.

Now that vt7 has come along my views will be somewhat limited but it makes vt5 legal.

Having followed the legal issues my own view is that vt5 and 7 are not legal,by the intent of issue 9,but thats with the court.

I have just visited Jomtien and I cannot understand what view talay are playing at.

What sort of organisation are they,and what are their motives, to put vt7 where it is,and at 27 floors?

This area is going to end up a small Manhattan,they are going to create a horrible little cement city enclave from what could have been such a global advertisment for the view talay brand and organisation.

The negative publicity about all this must be harming them commercially both in Thailand and worldwide.

They must have lost loads of sales in vt5,vt7,vt8 marina,etc,prime land plots, because of this.

Indeed I myself have shunned them since and will never consider them in the future,you just cannot trust view talay.

I will buy my retirement place from a reputable developer,and put my vt5 condo to low cost rental.

But if vt7 is declared legal,I suppose the legality issue of vt5 goes away.

VT7 is legal, so is VT5, VT3, JomTien Plaza etc., etc., etc. I would be less concerned about VT7 blocking your views but rather another highrise being built adjacent to VT5. VT denies owning the land but I bet they eventually will and build VT13(?). The only negative publicity is here on TV and the typical condo buyer will know little about this VT7 saga and I doubt it will have little impact on sales. Rather than worrying about threatened views, if I was a VT5 owner my primary concern would be to organize the condo owners and vote VT out as the juristic person and management company. They have a history of mis-management at VT1 and VT2 where condo owners there gave them the boot. The new management has righted the ship there and I suggest VT5 does the same before it is too late.

Section 42 of the Condominium Act states: There is to be a meeting of all the co-owners, called a General Meeting, within 6 months after the date of registration of the Condominium Juristic Person and subsequent general meetings at least once a year.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Tammi

[ThaiBob]

I have mixed feelings about all this.

I bought a condo in vt5 because it was in a nice location , by the sea,and reasonably priced,perfect for when I retire.

At that stage no mention of vt7 or vt5 legality issues from view talay.

Now that vt7 has come along my views will be somewhat limited but it makes vt5 legal.

Having followed the legal issues my own view is that vt5 and 7 are not legal,by the intent of issue 9,but thats with the court.

I have just visited Jomtien and I cannot understand what view talay are playing at.

What sort of organisation are they,and what are their motives, to put vt7 where it is,and at 27 floors?

This area is going to end up a small Manhattan,they are going to create a horrible little cement city enclave from what could have been such a global advertisment for the view talay brand and organisation.

The negative publicity about all this must be harming them commercially both in Thailand and worldwide.

They must have lost loads of sales in vt5,vt7,vt8 marina,etc,prime land plots, because of this.

Indeed I myself have shunned them since and will never consider them in the future,you just cannot trust view talay.

I will buy my retirement place from a reputable developer,and put my vt5 condo to low cost rental.

But if vt7 is declared legal,I suppose the legality issue of vt5 goes away.

VT7 is legal, so is VT5, VT3, JomTien Plaza etc., etc., etc. I would be less concerned about VT7 blocking your views but rather another highrise being built adjacent to VT5. VT denies owning the land but I bet they eventually will and build VT13(?). The only negative publicity is here on TV and the typical condo buyer will know little about this VT7 saga and I doubt it will have little impact on sales. Rather than worrying about threatened views, if I was a VT5 owner my primary concern would be to organize the condo owners and vote VT out as the juristic person and management company. They have a history of mis-management at VT1 and VT2 where condo owners there gave them the boot. The new management has righted the ship there and I suggest VT5 does the same before it is too late.

Section 42 of the Condominium Act states: There is to be a meeting of all the co-owners, called a General Meeting, within 6 months after the date of registration of the Condominium Juristic Person and subsequent general meetings at least once a year.

True, but it took VT1 7-8 years and VT2 4-5 years to remove VT management. VT fought every attempt of relinquishing control. VT5 owners need to organize and act now.

[Wiresok]

I have mixed feelings about all this.

I bought a condo in vt5 because it was in a nice location , by the sea,and reasonably priced,perfect for when I retire.

At that stage no mention of vt7 or vt5 legality issues from view talay.

Now that vt7 has come along my views will be somewhat limited but it makes vt5 legal.

Having followed the legal issues my own view is that vt5 and 7 are not legal,by the intent of issue 9,but thats with the court.

I have just visited Jomtien and I cannot understand what view talay are playing at.

What sort of organisation are they,and what are their motives, to put vt7 where it is,and at 27 floors?

This area is going to end up a small Manhattan,they are going to create a horrible little cement city enclave from what could have been such a global advertisment for the view talay brand and organisation.

The negative publicity about all this must be harming them commercially both in Thailand and worldwide.

They must have lost loads of sales in vt5,vt7,vt8 marina,etc,prime land plots, because of this.

Indeed I myself have shunned them since and will never consider them in the future,you just cannot trust view talay.

I will buy my retirement place from a reputable developer,and put my vt5 condo to low cost rental.

But if vt7 is declared legal,I suppose the legality issue of vt5 goes away.

VT7 is legal, so is VT5, VT3, JomTien Plaza etc., etc., etc. I would be less concerned about VT7 blocking your views but rather another highrise being built adjacent to VT5. VT denies owning the land but I bet they eventually will and build VT13(?). The only negative publicity is here on TV and the typical condo buyer will know little about this VT7 saga and I doubt it will have little impact on sales. Rather than worrying about threatened views, if I was a VT5 owner my primary concern would be to organize the condo owners and vote VT out as the juristic person and management company. They have a history of mis-management at VT1 and VT2 where condo owners there gave them the boot. The new management has righted the ship there and I suggest VT5 does the same before it is too late.

I'm not so sure about the legality issues as still with the courts.

Thats what I mean about this small are of jomtien beach,its sure to end up a high rise concrete jungle,with every possible square metre built on.But if thats what pattaya city hall want..??

On my last few visits to Thailand I have been in the view talay offices several times and examined the vt 5,7,8 books and there are loads of units unsold there,they sell very slowly if at all.

I watch things from abroad ,and if I am aware of whats going on down there then I'm sure others are to.

Good point about the management ,maybe worth a circular on the notice board next time out.

The views were one contributory factor to my decision to buy there,but as I see it most of the initial beneficial aspects of the project will slowly be eroded.

But like I say we will put view talay in the bin and move on.

[khunyae]

QUOTE (thaigene2 @ 2008-04-03 22:07:07)

QUOTE (quiksilva @ 2008-04-03 09:40:05)

Well look at it this way, at least it will add value to older buildings with car parks. Furthermore there is likely to be a lot fewer new condo developments within 1km of a BTS station now too.

I mean its all very well having more sellable space, but how are they going to sell condo units without car parking spaces?

You know, when I read this news report in the newspaper at breakfast - the coffee nearly snorted out my nose. It's classic Thailand isn't it?

But then I read the story about Plus Properties being required to knock down the top few floors of ELEVEN OF THEIR NEW CONDO PROJECTS -- Many already built!

What a funny place - I mean really.

_______________________________________________________________

Anyone know where this happened? Anybody know where to find the news article?

Was in Bangkok Post and Nation on 3rd April 2008.

[lookat]

From The Nation

Condo complex faces licensing fiasco

Published on Mar 4, 2008

A luxury condominium complex in Bangkok's Chatuchak district has allegedly not gained construction approval for one of its two buildings, prompting the district office director to file a police complaint for construction without permission.Chatuchak district director Pornlert Phanwattana said yesterday that the project - named The Pulse by developer Prinsiri Plc - existed before he took up the post.

Project in trouble after Chatuchak district office chief files police complaint over alleged illegal construction He was informed by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) Public Works Department after he joined the office that the developer did not apply for construction permission for one building. Pornlert lodged the complaint at Paholyothin Police Station.

All sides must now wait for the police to summon them to give information for the investigation, he said. He added that officials had been trying to stop the condominium construction but had failed to do so.However, Chaiwat Kovitchindachai, deputy managing director of Prinsiri, insisted his company had abided by the law."We applied for the construction licence under Article 39 (2) of the Building Control Act. We have filed the application and the approval is pending. If the construction plan is to be amended, we can re-file the application [until we meet the criteria]," he said. Under the article, implemented in 1996, developers can start construction work after submitting an application ratified by its engineers.

The developer will then be issued with the construction licence after their plans meet the construction and environment criteria. The rule was initiated after developers' complaints of slow approval of licences from the BMA.

The condominium, which has some 300 units in two buildings located in Phaholyothin Soi 37, is nearly complete, with Building A to be opened in May and Building B in August, a BMA source said. Prinsiri, a well-known property developer, opened an office for purchase reservations late last year, with a starting price of Bt2.55 million per unit. It was now 80 per cent sold, the source said. However, while one building had obtained construction permission, the other had not, the source said.A Prinsiri executive said the company had no intention of violating the law and was fixing "what could be regarded as illegal".The source said the firm would maintain its good reputation.

This issue emerged after the firm applied for permission at an environmental agency after the construction was almost complete, but the agency refused to issue approval as the firm failed to present the needed construction permission, the source said.Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin said he had not been informed about this case but would order a probe to see if there was any violation and who was involved. He said the agencies responsible were the BMA Public Works Department, the City Planning Department and the district office.Another BMA source said it was impossible that district officials would not know about this and that they could not just deny responsibility regarding this project in their jurisdiction.

A sign in front of the site showed that another firm was constructing the condominium.The sign showed the construction permission registration number, which was reportedly for only one of its two buildings.

Jeerawan Prasomsap

The Nation

Edited April 4, 2008 by lookat

[lookat]

Friday I heard the appeal was accepted

Edited April 5, 2008 by lookat

[popshirt]

VT7 is legal, so is VT5, VT3, JomTien Plaza etc., etc., etc. I would be less concerned about VT7 blocking your views but rather another highrise being built adjacent to VT5. VT denies owning the land but I bet they eventually will and build VT13(?). The only negative publicity is here on TV and the typical condo buyer will know little about this VT7 saga and I doubt it will have little impact on sales. Rather than worrying about threatened views, if I was a VT5 owner my primary concern would be to organize the condo owners and vote VT out as the juristic person and management company. They have a history of mis-management at VT1 and VT2 where condo owners there gave them the boot. The new management has righted the ship there and I suggest VT5 does the same before it is too late.

I own three units in VT5-C (used to be A) and know others in the building who have talked with owners in VT2 about their experience.

A number of us are ready to join up with whatever group decides to go ahead and wrest management away from View Talay.

In my opinion the place is already going to pot.

I live in Bangkok and don't spend that much time (yet) in Jomtien but will be there more in the future. In the meantime if anyone decides to spearhead such an effort, count me in and keep me informed.

[prospero]

VT7 is legal, so is VT5, VT3, JomTien Plaza etc., etc., etc. I would be less concerned about VT7 blocking your views but rather another highrise being built adjacent to VT5. VT denies owning the land but I bet they eventually will and build VT13(?). The only negative publicity is here on TV and the typical condo buyer will know little about this VT7 saga and I doubt it will have little impact on sales. Rather than worrying about threatened views, if I was a VT5 owner my primary concern would be to organize the condo owners and vote VT out as the juristic person and management company. They have a history of mis-management at VT1 and VT2 where condo owners there gave them the boot. The new management has righted the ship there and I suggest VT5 does the same before it is too late.

I own three units in VT5-C (used to be A) and know others in the building who have talked with owners in VT2 about their experience.

A number of us are ready to join up with whatever group decides to go ahead and wrest management away from View Talay.

In my opinion the place is already going to pot.

I live in Bangkok and don't spend that much time (yet) in Jomtien but will be there more in the future. In the meantime if anyone decides to spearhead such an effort, count me in and keep me informed.

Why don't you View Talay owners start another thread?

[stopvt7]

Back to the point!

FYI: I was informed Friday that the Supreme Administration Court accepted our appeal. I post it so you may understand the facts of our legal case against Pattaya Cite Hall.

Appeal the order of lifting the injunction or the protection procedure

Number of Black Type Case: 54 /๒๕ 50.

Supreme Court of Administration

15 of February, 2008.

Mr. Tenblue A. J. Maria #1^st, with the associates of 9 Plaintiff

Between

The Pattaya City Hall # 1 and the associates all are 2 persons The Plaint receiver

I, hereby, The Plaintiff: Mr. Tenblue A. J. Maria # 1^st with the associates of 9, would like to appeal: the order of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, given on 16 January 2008, with the following statements and matters (the clarifications of objections of the decision or the order of the Administrative court)

1. This case, On 16 January 2008 The Administrative court of Rayong province ordered to lift the injunction / or cancel the procedure of protection to temporally minimize the injurious consequences, which was the order for the 2nd Plaint Receiver to stop building the construction higher than 14 meters from road surfaces, until final judgment, as in the petition of the 2^nd Plaint receiver on 2 January 2008. The Administrative court of Rayong province made its decision by referring to “ Section 77 of the Minutes of the Grand Meeting of Administration officers of Supreme Administrative Court, governing the Administrative Procedures of B.E. 2543, stipulated to bring statements which are written as in TYPE 1 - DIVISION 4 under the Civil Procedure Code, to enforce with the standard for consideration the request / the conditions of court’s order /and results of the order which enforcing certain protection procedures in order to minimize the injurious consequences before judgment / or the protection procedure for the benefit of petitioners while the case is on trail / or for enforcing to follow the decision, by adapting to the status as possible as it is available and capable in the case, without violating this regulations / and general laws relating to Administrative consideration procedures / and Article 262, Phrase 1 of Civil Procedure Code, which stipulated that “If the fact or circumstance which used by the court as the guidance for considering on granting the requested on the protection procedure has changed, when the court considers that it’s suitable / or when the request was submitted by the Defendants or Plaint receivers or the outsiders as clarified in Article 261, to the court where in the course of trial, the court can reconsider / or cancel the former procedure or order. In this case, the court order to set up the protection procedure to minimize the injurious consequences before judgment, granted the request of 10 Plaintiffs, with prior reason which stated that “In For court’s consideration, it is necessary for the court to make the inspections carefully in order to determine the starting point of the measurement in accordance with Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) / AND to see if the distance from the dispute building to the spot as mentioned is in violation to the distance stipulated by law. But by the measurement conducted by the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning which ordered by court, the facts appeared in the report, and the testimony of witness that, the dispute building is more than 100 meters from the Mean Sea Level ( MSL ), which the court is of the opinion that, if the measurement was made from the building control area shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 – Controlling over the region of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, which by another 100 meters further away in the sea from the MSL, as shown in the map annexed to the aforesaid Royal Decree and as testified by the witness, the dispute building would also be over 200 meter from the building control area as referred by the aforesaid Ministerial Regulations. Therefore, the fact of which used by the court to order the injunction / or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment as requested by 10 Litigants of this case has changed / and there is not enough suitable reasons to support the aforesaid protection procedure to be continued placing.

The court ordered to lift the injunction / or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment, which originally was the order to stop the 2^nd Plaint Receiver from building the construction higher than 14 meters from road surfaces, until the final decision / or the different order is made and given.”

With respect to the order of Administrative court of Rayong province, 9 Litigants, however are in disagreement with the order which given by the court, because in the state of enquiries/ interpretations / enforcing the law for controlling constructions, in accordance with the law controlling the aforesaid order given by court, however, there still are mistakes and errors in many points of facts and matters of laws, which will be offer to the consideration of the Supreme Court of Administration in this appeal.

9 Litigants understand that, the order given on 16 January 2008, by the Administrative Court of Rayong province, to lift the injunction or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment IS NOT THE REJECTION or DISMISSAL of the petition of 9 Litigants which requested the court to order for the injunction or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment which is stipulated to be the supreme order, and this order is not opened for further appeal to be submitted in court, referring to Section 76 of Minutes of the Grand Meeting of Administration officers of Supreme Administrative Court, governing The Administrative Procedures of B.E. 2543. But the aforesaid order is considered as another type of order which is open for an appeal while the case is on trial, referring to Section 100, Phrase 2 of the aforesaid regulations, which 9 Litigants, in the capacities of interested person, hold the right to appeal the aforesaid order within the limitation of 30 days, from the day of receiving the order from Administrative Court of Rayong province, by Section 49 / 1 of the same regulations.

2. 9 Litigants need to appeal the order of lifting the injunction / or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment given on 16 January 2008 to the Supreme Court of Administration, with reasons, facts and matters of laws as follow;

By the order of Administrative Court of Rayong province, to lift the injunction / or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment given on 16 January 2008, by using the facts from the report of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning / and the testimony of the witness, summarized that The Construction Control Line shown in the annexed map of the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 – Controlling over the region of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, The B.E. 2521 is the distance of 100 meters further into the sea from the MSL, and when the measurement conducted as ordered from court from the MSL onto the land for another 100 meters, the fact of the result of measurement appealed in the report of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning / and the testimony of the witness, stated that, the dispute building is more than 100 meters from the MSL, and the court considered that, if the measurement is made from the Construction Control Area, as shown in the map annexed to the aforesaid Royal Decree, which is at the furthest end of 100 meters in the sea, from the shoreline at MSL as shown in the annexed map and as testified by the witness, the dispute building would also be over 200 meter from the building control area as referred by the Section 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), which buildings over 14 meters from road surfaces are also not permitted to be constructed as mentioned. Therefore, the facts of which used by court to order the injunction / or the protection procedure to temporally minimize injurious consequences before judgment as requested by 10 Litigants of this case have changed / and there were not enough suitable reasons to support the aforesaid protection procedure to be further on. The Administrative Court of Rayong province, however, had finally ordered to revoke / lift the injunction or / the protection procedure to temporally minimize injurious consequences before judgment as mentioned.

9 Litigants need to point out to The Supreme Court of Administration that, the aforesaid decision given by the Administrative Court of Rayong province, based on the enquiry of facts/ interpretation and enforcing law in order to control the involved constructions, in the way to be contrary to the intentions / or purposes of law………………., and it has impact /negative effects to the benefit of 10 Litigants and public in order to maintain the qualities of environment, as the following clarifications;

2.1 To interpret for enforcing the law for controlling constructions, in accordance with The Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), must considerer the intentions and purposes of laws which are involved with one another. The law using to control over the regions of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, had been stipulated in order to mark the construction control area for the first time, which was The Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) by using the reasons /or another words / it’s the intention of promulgating the aforesaid regulations, it states that, The intention of promulgating the aforesaid Regulations was “ as the Royal Decree promulgating The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, controlling over some areas of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district of Chonburi province B.E. 2499, and the area as mentioned are public attractions for taking an airing, it’s suitable to prohibit certain types of constructions which may cause troubles / disturbance and create waste / and ruin the environment, therefore, this Regulations was in need to be issued.

Later on 31 December 2521, the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) had been promulgated, with reasons that “Because there was the adjustment of the construction control area in the regions of Banglamung / Naklua / and Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, by expanding the area, as shown in the annexed map of the Royal Decree Promulgating The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, controlling over the areas of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district of Chonburi province B.E. 2521, it is suitable to make an amendment to the Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), prescribed in accordance with The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, governing the certain types of buildings which are prohibited to be constructed within the construction control area, referring to the aforesaid Royal Decree, in order to be more suitable, therefore, this Regulations was in needed to be issued.

The reason for promulgating the Royal Decree, stipulated to use the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, to control over the regions of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, had been “in according to the expansion of constructions in the areas of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, and some constructions were not controlled by the Construction Control Acts, because the construction control area, as shown in the annexed map of the Royal Decree promulgating the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to control over the regions of Banglamung / Naklua / and Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province B.E. 2499, did not cover the aforesaid areas of construction, it’s needed to make the amendment to the aforesaid Royal Decree, by expanding the area, especially the areas by the beaches, in order for the local officers to be able to proceed by the law, therefore, this Royal Decree is in need to be stipulated.”

The way of drafting the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 (B.E. 2519), the drafter must analyze the reasons of law, this is counted to be the priority in enforcing the law, because it is the searching procedure to find the reason of the law, which stipulated to find the fact why the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) was issued in such a way and what reason it was for, whether it was appropriate and how appropriate it was. For the law to be enforced, following the intention of law that empowered to be used, therefore, when there was the meeting to draft the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 (E. 2519), from the office of Royal Decree stated that “The area of 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map, from the sea onto the land shall not be permitted to construct the following types of buildings”

………(8) Buildings with the height of 14 meters

Later on, there was the further amendment to cut out the phrase “onto the land” since the wording was clearly understood, then the following phrase was used instead “to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted to be constructed”. The meeting approved the aforesaid draft of the Ministerial Regulation, because of the reason to protect the area by the shore, by controlling the constructions which may impact the seas and beaches: details as shown in the attachment of the appeal No:1 – The Meeting of Drafting of the Ministerial Regulation of Issue8 ( B.E. 2519 )

Therefore, the intention or purpose of The Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 is “to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore onto the land that the type of building of No. 3 ( 1 ) – ( 8 ) are not permitted to be con-structed, in accordance with the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), which stated that….Because the aforesaid areas are public attractions for taking an airing, it’s suitable to prohibit certain types of constructions which may cause troubles and disturbance and create waste and may destroy the environment.

Leter on, there was the adjustment of the construction control area in the regions of Banglamung / Naklua / and Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, by expanding the area, as shown in the annexed map of the Royal Decree Promulgating The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, controlling over the areas of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district of Chonburi province B.E. 2521, it is suitable to make an amendment to the Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), to be more suitable, therefore, The Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) was promulgated, shown in the remark section, on the attached map of Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9, and therefore, the provision of both Ministerial Regulations are in accordance with one another, / or the procedures are connect with one another, so they were always mentioned of / or used as references in parts of their regulations.

The intention or purpose to promulgate the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)

is to expand the control area for constructions in Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district, Bang- lamung District of Chonburi Province, which are the public attractions for taking an airing or holiday, by in the Regulations of Issue 9 fixes the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according

to the annexed map of the Royal Degree of B.E. 2521, at the sea shore that types of

buildings of NO. 3 ( 1 ) – ( 8 ) shall not be permitted to be constructed. When it is needed to law interpreted to be in accord with the intention or purpose of the Regulations of Issue 8 (B.E. 2519),

the expansion made from 100 to 200 meters must be expanded the distance at the sea shore onto the land, in order to protect those areas from the prohibited constructions, in accordance with the provisions of Issue 8 and 9, to be more suitable and appropriate.

Plus the reason of promulgating of the Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519) is Because some areas of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue sub-district of Banglamung District of Chonburi province are public attractions for taking an airing or holiday, it’s suitable to prohibit certain types of constructions which may cause troubles and disturbance and create waste and may destroy the environment, therefore, this regulations was needed to be issued, by No. 3 stated to fix 100 meters from the construction control line, shown on the annexed map of the Royal Decree Promulgating The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, control over the regions of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district of Banglamung district of Chonburi province of B.E. 2499, at the sea shore, to be the prohibited areas for the following types of constructions:

1. Oil, Gasoline storage and distribution area

2. Entertainment Halls

3. Shop houses

4. Shop buildings

5. Fresh food market

6. Cars or motorcycles garage of fixing or air compressing spray

7. Products storage

8. Tall building with the height over 14 meters

According to the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) on section 3. (1 ) – ( 8 ) stipulated

To prohibit all 8 types of constructions as same as the Regulation of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) with the reason of The promulgation of the Regulation of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) was “ because there was the adjustment on the construction control area in Banglamung/ Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district by expand out of the area / making an expansion to be wider….” The word “ wide ” means by the meaning marked in the dictionary of B.E. 2542 that to expand / spread / stretch i.e. the wide area

The word “ out ” means movement that move to outside, starting or happening i.e. the

transportations departure.

The word “ off / go ” means movement that move from the place, use this word in opposite with “ in / come ”

9 Litigants need to explain to the court the meaning of the words “wide”, “out” and “off”

which stipulated in the remark section of the Regulation of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) to be the words to fix the true meanings of hose words, by covering the meaning of expanding the area or space out to expand the construction control area. If these words are used to interpret the regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), therefore the meaning will be the expansion of the construction control area, refer to section 3. ( 1 ) – ( 8 ), from 100 meters to be 200 meters, so the expansion must have been made from the sea shore onto the land , details shown in the attachment No.2: The copy of the meaning of these words written in the dictionary of B.E. 2542.

And with the consideration of the types of building which are under control of the section 3 . ( 1 ) – ( 8 ) of the Regulations of Issue 8 and 9 as mentioned, it shown that all types of buildings are the types of building that needed to be built on land , certainly NOT in the sea, therefore, there is no reason to interpret the phrase “expand wider ”, shown in the remark section of the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) that to expand the construction control area in to the sea. Because it will make the construction control area become the non-operative, refer to the intention or purpose of the aforesaid Regulations. So the interpretation of the Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), section 3, which stipulated to fix 200 meters…….. would be the expansion of the construction control area, section 3. ( 1 ) – ( 8 ) from the sea shore on to the land for 100 meters wider to be 200 meters. The distance of 100 meters which expanding the construction control area in to the sea has not been stipulated in any Regulations, in order to control the constructions

which is needed to be built specially in the sea, which the Ministry of the Interior will further stipulate this matters in order to control certain types of constructions within 100 meters out in to the sea in the future, to be suitable and appropriate to the future situation.

Therefore, the decision agreed with the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, which interpreted that “ The Construction Control Area at the sea shore” is the line measured from the sea shore at the MSL out in to the sea for 100 meters, therefore, the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), stipulated following The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, section 3, fixes the area within 200 meters, by measuring from the construction control area, shown on the annexed map of the Royal Decree of B.E. 2479 at the sea shore, to be the prohibit area for the building with the height over 14 meters, therefore, the measurement is made from the aforesaid Construction Control Line at the sea shore ONTO the land for 200 meters, will be the MSL + 0.00 and carry on ONTO the land for another 100 meters.

Therefore, it was contrary to the intentions and purposes of laws effected by the result from the inquiry for hearing of facts / interpretation and enforcing law which verify and protect, for controlling involving constructions, and the law is unable to be used in reality for the protection of public benefit, as pointing out to the consideration of the Supreme Court of Administration as above.

2.2 Plus the interpretation of The Construction Control Area of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) which taken by the court from the report of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning, including the testimony of the witness, which said that the dispute building is more than 100 meters from the MSL, and which was the reason for the cancellation of the injunction / or the order to have the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment, which was the order for the 2^nd Plaint Receiver to stop its construction of the building over 14 meters high until the final decision is made, made the Construction Control Area of Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) narrower for 11 meters than the Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), and it allowed the constructions over 14 meters high to be built closer to the sea, against the intention of the law, as the following details:

9 Litigants would like to explain to the court that, “ the point to start measuring, referring to the Ministerial of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), stated in accordance with the The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, Section 3., which stated that “ To fix the area of 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, to control the areas of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District of Chonburi Province of B.E. 2499, at the sea shore, to be the prohibited areas for the following descriptions of constructions……(8) Buildings with the height of 14 meters ”

And by the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), stated in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, Section 3., which stated that “ To fix the area of 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, to control the areas of Banglamung / NONG PLALAI / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District of Chonburi Province of B.E. 2499, at the sea shore, to be the prohibited areas for the following descriptions of constructions……(8) Buildings with the height of 14 meters ”

The measurement points stipulated in both Regulations were not the same point, by the letter which made by MR. SUPOHN PONGTHATPAT, who was sent on behalf of the Director – General of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, submitted to the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, written that “ 2. The distance of 100 meters, by Section 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), stipulated in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, and the distance of 200 meters by Section 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), stipulated in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 ARE NOT THE SAME LINE, because the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) did not stipulate to measure at the MSL, but the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) stipulated to measure at the MSL, details as shown in the attachment NO. 3: The letter which was “Most Urgent” Report Ref. Mor Tor 0710/9634 dated 19 December 2007 of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, Subject: Requesting for the testimony

The aforesaid explanation of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning showed that The Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), meant to measure from the coast line, means at high tide, but Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) is to measure at the MSL. This means the measurement points of both Regulations are not the same point.

The Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), meant to measure from the coast line as mentioned to the Administrative Court as Rayong Province, which the 1^st Plaint Receiver had inspected the dispute building of the 2^nd Plaint Receiver, it showed that the coast line ( High Tide ) was 39 meters from the land, details as shown in the letter of Pattaya City Hall, by the Mayor to Secretary of the Environmental and Surroundings Planning Office, Dated on 5 April 2007, which was used by the 1^st Plaintiff as the attachment for its testimonial dated on 19 July 2007, No 13 in order, which 9 Litigants need to appoint this document to be the attachment NO. 4.

The report of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning, dated on 18 December 2007 wrote that “…. The coast line at the MSL must be measured at the Mean Sea Level of 0.00 meters, and when measure out 100 meters into the sea will be the construction control are, referring to the annexed map of the Royal Decree of B.E. 2479, to control the areas of Banglamung / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-Districts of Banglamung District of Chonburi Province of B.E. 2521, and the measurement is made from the aforesaid point ONTO the land to reach the beginning of the building for another 100 meter, it will be the distance of The Construction Control Area of 200 Meters, referring to Section 3 of The Regulations of Issue 8, which was amended and added by the Issue 9 of B.E. 2521, stipulated in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which prohibit the constructions over 14 meters high….”

And from the report of procedure following the court’s order, which was the attachment of the MOST URGENT LETTER of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning: Report Ref. Mor Tor 0710/9634 dated 19 December 2007. It showed that:

( 1 ) The measurement from the coast line at the MSL ( + 0.00 ) on the NORTH point of the dispute land until reaching the Bench Mark, would be 50.15 meter. Then measure onto the dispute land for another 49.85 meters would be 100 meters measured from the coast line at the MSL ( + 0.00 ) ON THIS SIDE

( 2 ) The measurement from the coast line at the MSL ( + 0.00 ) on the SOUTH point of the dispute land until reaching the Bench Mark, would be 49.60 meter. Then measure onto the dispute land for another 50.40 meters would be 100 meters measured from the coast line at the MSL ( + 0.00 ) ON THIS SIDE

Details as shown in the petition of the 2^nd Plaint Receiver, Dated on 2

January 2008, together with the witness’s testimonial of 15 January 2008, by Mr. Veera

Visuthirattanakul, 7^th Class Lawyer of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, testified as the Witness, that … “if measure from the construction control line, as referred in The Royal Decree B.E. 2521, it would be the distance of the building as same as measuring from the MSL onto the land for 100 meter.

From the facts which explained to the Supreme Court of Administration as

above, if the interpretation of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) is made as written in the report and the testimony of the witness, the measurement from the coast line at the MSL ( +0.00 ) on the NORTH and SOUTH point of the dispute land until reaching the Bench Mark of the 2^nd Plaint Receiver would be 50.15 and 49.60 meters in order. The Regulations of Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) is compared at the coast line until reaching the land mark of the 2^nd Plaint Receiver, it would be 39 meters. It shows that the coast line as the MSL and the coast line ( High Tide ) is approximately the distance of 11 meters.The aforesaid interpretation of Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) would make the Construction Control Area referring to Section 3.(8), which is the prohibited area for the buildings over 14 meters high, narrower that the Construction Control Line of Section 3.(8) of the Regulations of Issue 8 (B.E. 2519), which allowing the constructions over 14 meters high to be constructed 11 meters closer to the sea, which is contrary to the intention and purpose of the Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) which intended to expand the area as mentioned, and intended to expand the Construction Control Area by the shore line. If the intention was interpreted that the expansion of the Construction Control Area of the Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) is to expand the distance at the seaside onto the land, then it will be in accord with the intention and purpose of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), as mentioned to the Supreme Court of Administration as above.

So the testimony of Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, said that the dispute

building is 103 and 102 meters onto the land from the MSL”, if this phrase was interpreted that the starting point of the Construction Control Area was 200 meters onto the land from the MSL, then the dispute building would be within 200 meters, which was the Construction Control Area, stipulated in the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), section 3.(8 ), which is the prohibited area for the building over 14 meters high, as the aforesaid reasons explained to the Supreme Court of Administration as above.

2.3 The Plaintiff would like to add on the explanation to the Supreme Court of

Administration that, by Article 79 of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522, stipulated that …. “All Ministerial Regulations / Local provisions / Provincial provisions / Rules and Regulations / Notices / or Other Orders, which stipulated by referring to The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2579, / or the Construction Control for the burning areas of B.E. 2476, they will be used to enforce by law as long as there is no contrary to this Acts ”. 9 Plaintiffs see that, not just “ All Ministerial Regulations / Local provisions / Provincial provisions / Rules and Regulations / Notices / or Other Orders, which stipulated by referring to both of The Construction Control Acts as mentioned, , they will be used to enforce by law as long as there is no contrary to the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522, HOWEVER, the interpretation for enforcing the Ministerial Regulations / Local Provisions /Or Orders as above, must be interpreted to be in accord with the intention for enforcing the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522, and also the involve laws. This is to be in agreement with the intention of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522, in Article 5 of this Acts, which stipulated that The Minister of the Ministry of the Interior has power to enforce the Ministerial Regulations to enforce in different circumstances, referring to Article 8, “ For the safety and security / Fire Protection / Public Health / Environmental Quality Control / City Planning / Architectural and Traffic Serving / including other fields which are involved with the procedures to be in accord with this Acts, stipulated the Minister with the assistance of the Construction Control Committee, to be the in power to create the Regulations to stipulate: ( 10 ) The Prohibited Area for certain types / kinds of constructions to be constructed / modified / demolished / Moved and used / or changed the purposes of buildings. ETC.

Since the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522 was enforced until now, there

have been 12 Ministerial Regulations which are still active, following Article 8(10 ), in the part that involving the area by the sea, which are the public attractions and tourist destinations , by stipulating the prohibition for certain types of buildings which may cause the disturbance and waste, in the same way of the stipulation of Regulations of Issue 8 and 9, which stipulated in accordance with The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, by in each issue stipulates the matters in the points that involve the stipulation of Construction Control Area of the building over 12 meters high as follow:

( 1 ) Ministerial Regulation Issue 15 (B.E. 2529 ) Phu-ket Province (Pha-thong beach) - Within 150 meters from the 1^st area ( according to the map, the 1^st area is 50 meters onto the land from the shore ) the restricted area in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be permitted to be constructed.

( 2 ) Ministerial Regulation Issue 20 (B.E. 2532 ) Phu-ket Province (Western shorelines) - Within 200 meters from the shore shall be the restricted area in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be permitted to be constructed.

( 3 )Ministerial Regulation Issue 22 (B.E. 2532) Suratthani Province ( Samui Island ) - Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the Building with the height more than 12 meters shall not be permitted.

( 4 ) Ministerial Regulation Issue 30 (B.E. 2534 ) Phetchaburi Province ( Cha-um ) - Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be built.

(5) Ministerial Regulation Issue 31 (B.E. 2534 ) Chanthaburi Province - Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be built.

(6) Ministerial Regulation Issue 36(B.E. 2535) Prachuap-Kirikhun Province (Hua-Hin) - Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be built.

( 7 ) The Ministerial Regulations fixes the prohibited area for certain kinds or types of constructions / or modification or changing purposes of building of Pang-Nga Province of B.E. 2544- Setting of 225 meters measured from coast line in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be built.

( 8 ) Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2546) Trad Province- Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the Building with the height more than 12 meters shall not be permitted.

( 9 ) Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2547) Khabi ProvinceSetting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be built।

( 10 ) Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2543) Trang Province ( accepted Lee-pea island ) 3- Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the building of 12 meters shall not be built.

( 11 ) Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2549 ) Ranong Province - Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be built.

( 12 ) Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2549) Sa-toon Province ( accepted Lee-peh island ) - Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the building of 12 meters shall not be built.

Apart from the aforesaid stipulations, The Ministerial Regulations also marked the meaning of The Coast Line that, it’s where water reaches the highest level which causes by nature. Details as shown in the attachment No. 5: The copies of 12 Ministerial Regulations.

It shows that the intention of The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522 and the involved Regulations which have been using to control all beaches in the kingdom is to save the environment and the ecological system all around the coast line for the area of 200 meters from the shore line, marked at the high tide, to prohibit the types of constructions which may cause the impact, including the buildings with over 12 meters high as mentioned. So the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) stipulated to fix 200 meters from “the Construction Control Line”, which is 100 meters away into the sea from the coast line at the MSL, to be the prohibited area for the building over 14 meters high IS ALSO CONTRARY to the intention of enforcing the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522.

3. The facts seen from the order of lifting the injunction / or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, given the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment given on 16 January 2008 , by using facts from the report of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning / and the testimony of the witness, summarized that The Construction Control Line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 – Controlling over the region of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, The B.E. 2521 is the distance of 100 meters further into the sea from the MSL, the dispute building would be over 200 meter from the building control area as referred by the Section 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), which buildings over 14 meters from road surfaces are also not permitted to be constructed. The aforesaid decision of the Administrative Court of Rayong province shown many points of mistakes and errors of the inquiry for hearing/ interpretation and enforcing law in order to control the constructions by law, in the way of which is contrary to the intentions / or purposes of law which stipulated to verify and protect. The result of the aforesaid interpretation is the construction control area referring to the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 (B. E. 2519) becomes 11 meters which is in opposite with the intentions and purposes of law. As for the interpretation of intentions and purposes of the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9, referring to the annexed remark of the aforesaid regulations which stated that, the area of construction control is expanded. The expansion of construction control stipulated in Section 3. ( 1 )- ( 8 ), the construction control area must be measured from the MSL, onto the land for 200 meters, then it will fulfill the intentions of the regulations of Issue 9 and it will be operative , and truly useful for public. This case has no cause to lift the aforesaid injunction / or revoke the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment. With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court’s kind consideration to give court’s decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.

Yours Faithfully,

Signed: The Approved Person of 9 Litigants

Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam

****

Petition the Appeal against the Rejection order of the last appeal

Number of Black Case: 54 /๒๕ 50

Number of Red Case: /๒๕ .

Administrative Court of Rayong Province

27 March 2008

Mr. Tenblue A. J. Maria #1^st, with the associates of 10 Litigants

Between

Local Government Officer of Pattaya City Hall # 1

View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. # 2 Plaint Receivers

I, hereby,: Miss Jeerisumai Na. Nongkai and / or Miss Patjama Plagaid and / or Mr. Teerapan Pankiri and / or Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam In the capacity of : The eight Litigants, Located at: 505/12 Moo - Street: Ramkhamhaeng Trok / Soi: Ramkhamhaeng 39 ( Thepleela 1) Sub- district: Wangtonglang District: Wangtonglang Province: Bangkok Zip Code: 10310 Telephone: 02-318-4292-3,

Would like to lodge this Appeal with the following matters:

1. In this case, on 20 February 2008, after the 9 Litigants lodged the appeal to the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, the 6^th Litigant withdrew out from being one of the Litigants and had no longer intention to proceed legal statements against the 2 Plaint Receivers, and the withdrawal of the 6^th Litigant had already been approved from the court.

On 20 February 2008, the Appeal of 9 Litigants was rejected by The Administrative Court of Rayong Province, The 8 Litigants received the order of rejection from The Administrative Court of Rayong Province on 29 February 2008

With respect to the order of The Administrative Court of Rayong Province, but the 8 Litigants can not be in agreement with the aforesaid order. Thereby, the 8 Litigants can see that there are some mistakes or errors in the interpretation of the point of law to use by the court to reject the Appeal which lodged against the order of lifting the Injunction, details which will be clarified in the following statements of this Appeal.

In this case, The 10 Litigants requested for the Injunction to seize the construction of the dispute building until the final decision is given. Because every step of progression of the construction will bring more damages to the 10 Litigants in the future, and it is will be too severe to be remedied.

Later on, the Administrative Court of Rayong Province ordered the 2^nd Plaint Receiver to temporally stop the construction which had been permitted under the Construction License No: 162 / 2550 on 9^th April 2007, Issued on: 28^th November 2006 until the final decision or other order is given, since the order have been received. The Administrative Court of Rayong considered and wrote: “To be able to judge this case, the court needs to inspect carefully and find out the starting point of measurement which was stated in the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9. Also to find out if the distance of the dispute building from that point is correct by the law. The inspection will take some time. If the building is still constructed continuously, and if the court would finally revoke the construction license as requested by the 10 Litigants, then it might bring severe damages to the 10 Litigants. This matter gives enough reason for the court to order the Injunction as requested by the 10 Litigants.” The Court, therefore, ordered to seize the construction which had been permitted under the Construction License No: 162 / 2550 on 9^th April 2007, Issued on: 28^th November 2006 until the final decision or other order is given, since the order have been received.

The 2^nd Plaint Receiver, then lodged the Appeal against the order of placing the Injunction to minimize injurious consequences of The Administrative Court of Rayong Province.

The Supreme Court of Administration, then gave an order, Issued on 11^th July 2007, stated that:…… “ If the building is still constructed continuously building, and if the court would finally revoke the construction license as requested by the 10 Litigants, then it might bring severe damages to the 10 Litigants. If the license is revoked in the future, and the building must be demolished, as requested by the 10 Litigants, however, the demolition would take some time to be completed. It will still damage the 10 Litigants continuously during the step of demolition regardless, and it still can not solve what had been damaged the 10 Litigants This matter gives enough reason for the court to order the Injunction to minimize the injurious consequences before judgment, by ordering the 2^nd Plaint Receiver to seize the construction under the Construction License No: 162 / 2550 on 9^th April 2007, Issued on: 28^th November 2006 until the final decision or other order is given.”

However, the Clause 3(8) of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519) which was promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which was amended by the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), which was promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, stipulates the area of 200 meters, which measuring from the Construction Control Line, which shown on the annexed map of the Royal Decree of the promulgation of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479. The B.E. 2521, which taking control the areas along the sea side over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nagluea and Nongprue Sub-districts, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province. These areas are the prohibition areas for the buildings with the height over 14 meters from the road surface. Therefore, if the construction license No: 162 / 2550, which Issued on 28^th November 2006, and which issued by the 1^st Plaint Receiver, to the 2^nd Plaint Receiver would be found to be infringement to the law as stated by the 10 Litigants, is illegal, then the Administrative court of Rayong Province can cancel the license, only on the part of the construction which is illegal. Which means the part that had been given to the 2^nd Plaint Receiver to build the building parts over 14meters from the road surface only. When the order of Injunction to minimize the injurious consequences was given, the building of the 2^nd Plaint Receiver was constructed only on the ground level and still has not been built over 14 meters. Therefore, the order to place the Injunction then, happened to be more than the necessity to be done for that level of progression of the construction.

Later on, the Administrative Court of Rayong Province had the second order to amend the former order by allowing the 2^nd. Plaint Receiver to build the construction under the Construction License No: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28^th November 2006, up to 14 meters from the road surface only, until another order or the judgment is given

After the Supreme Court of Administration ordered the 2^nd Plaint Receiver to stop the construction over 14 meters of the building with the Construction License No: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28^th November 2006, until another order or the judgment is given, as mentioned above, on 2 January 2008, the 2^nd Plaint Receiver requested the Administrative Court of Rayong Province to life the Injunction or the procedure to minimize injurious consequences.

On 16^th January 2008, the Administrative Court of Rayong Province ordered to lift the Injunction as requested by the 2^nd plaint Receiver by stated that:…….. “the facts which have been used by the court to consider to give the order of Injunction, now have changed, and the reasons to continue placing the Injunction becomes insufficiency,

The court then, ordered to lift the Injunction which was the order of stopping the 2^nd Plaint Receiver from building the construction higher than 14 meters from the road surface temporally, until the final decision or the other order is given”.

On 15^th February 2008, the 9 Litigants lodged the Appeal against the order of cancellation of the Injunction / or the procedure to minimize injurious consequences.

Then on 20 February 2008, The Administrative Court of Rayong Province refused to accept the Appeal which was lodged by the 9 Litigants, with the reason that: …… “ Clause 76, 2^nd and 3^rd phrases of The Regulations of the Grand Meeting of the Supreme Court of Administration, governing the procedures of trying the case of B.E. 2543, stipulated the order of refusing / or lifting the Injunction which requested to minimize the injurious consequences before final decision is made, by the litigant / or the other party to be the final order, and the interested person has the right to lodge the Appeal against the order of placing the Injunction within 30 days, from the day of receiving the court order. From the aforesaid regulations, it shows that, there are only 2 circumstances which connect the procedure of trying the case of the Administrative Court to the procedures of Injunction to minimize injurious consequences. One is the circumstance of which the court gives the order to reject or lift or cancel the request of the litigant, this type of order is considered to be the final order. The other circumstance is in the case of which the court gives the order to place the injunction temporally, the interested person has the right to lodge the Appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration. In this case, the 2^nd Plaint Receiver used the right to lodge the Appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of placing the Injunction which had been ordered to grant the request of the 9 Litigants, and the Supreme Court already gave the order to replace the former order which was given by the Administrative Court of Rayong, when the reasons to continue placing the injunction became insufficiency. The court then, cancelled the procedure to minimize injurious consequences. This circumstance, however, gave the same effect as the rejection / or cancellation of the request which was requested by the 9 Litigants, therefore, this order is the final order as stated in Clause 76, 2^nd Phrase of the aforesaid Regulations. The 9 Litigants can no longer lodge the Appeal. This Appeal of the 9 Litigants is forbidden to be proceeded by the law, and should make the motion for the committee to consider not to accept this Appeal to be in accordance with the 2^nd Phrase of the Regulations of the Supreme Court’s Grand meeting, governing the procedures of trying the case of B.E. 2543.”

2. The 8 Litigants are in disagreement with the order of rejection of the Appeal which had been given by the Administrative Court of Rayong as mentioned, therefore, the 8 Litigants would like to lodge the Appeal against the aforesaid rejection order, given by the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, which rejected to accept the Appeal against the cancellation of the Injunction, by revealing the reasons, facts and points of law as follow;

As when the Administrative Court of Rayong Province gave the order to place the Injunction which was requested by the Litigants, the 2^nd Plaint Receiver used the right to lodge the Appeal, and then the Supreme Court of Administration gave the order to replace the order from the Administrative Court of Rayong. Later on, the Administrative Court of Rayong granted the request of the 2^nd Plaint Receiver after trying the case, by giving the order to lift the injunction as mentioned above, by depending on Clause 77 of the Regulations of the Supreme Court’s Grand Meeting, governing the procedures of trying Administration case of B.E. 2543, together with the Article 262, 1^st Phrase of the Civil Code. The aforesaid order of lifting the Injunction of the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, however is just the other step of trying the case and ordering, after the orders had been given from the Administrative Court of Rayong Province and The Supreme Court of Administration, and it is not the order of rejection or cancellation of the request which was filed by the 8 Litigants, which was stipulated to be the Supreme or Final Order, and to be forbidden to lodge the Appeal after receiving this order, as stated in Clause 76 of the same Regulations. Even though the effect of lifting the Injunction which was given by the Administrative Court of Rayong Province would be as same as the rejection or cancellation of the request which was filed by the Litigants, however, the aforesaid order from the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, had specific procedures of trying the case and giving out the order, which were separated from the former order, which was the order of placing the Injunction before receiving the final judicial decision. And it happened to be the new order which giving the negative effect to the benefit and rights of the other party, which used to be protected by the former order. Therefore, to interpret the law in order to enforce the order of lifting the Injunction, which was given by the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, to be the supreme or final order as same as the Order of Rejection or Cancellation of the Request which was filed by the 8 Litigants, / and to be forbidden from lodging another Appeal as stated in Clause 76 of the aforesaid Regulations, is not the right way to be done.

As written in Clause 100, 1^st Phrase of the Regulations of the Supreme Court’s Grand Meeting, governing the procedures of trying the Administrative cases of B.E. 2543, stipulated that, the judicial decision or the order of the First Administrative Court, which was not stipulated to be final by the law or this Regulations, the Appeal can be lodged to the Supreme Court of Administration. Thereby, the order of lifting the Injunction which was given by the Administrative Court, was not stipulated to be the final order in accordance with the law or the aforesaid Regulations, therefore, the aforesaid order is considered to be the other type of order which is opened for the Appeal, to be accordance with Clause 100, 2^nd Phrase, which stated that the interested person has the right to lodge the Appeal against the aforesaid order within 30 days, from the day of receiving the order from the First Administrative Court. In Clause 49 /1 of the same Regulations, the 8 Litigants have their rights to lodge the Appeal against the aforesaid Order to the Supreme Court of Administration within 30 days from the day of receiving the order of the Administrative Court of Rayong Province. The right to appeal against the order of lifting the Injunction, as revealed to the Supreme Court of Administration in this appeal as above, is in agreement with the point of law of the Civil Code, which giving the right to appeal against the order of amendment / or cancellation of the Injunction procedure which was placed before the final decision is given, in accordance with the Article 262 of the Civil Code, which was the order that related to the request of protection of the benefit of both parties during the trails, which is open for both parties to appeal within 1 month , and in the Article 228 ( 2 ) of the Civil Code which stipulates in the same way.

The 8 Litigants can not be in agreement with the Order of Rejection of the Appeal, by giving the decision that the order of lifting the Injunction would give the same effect to the Rejection or Cancellation of the request which was filed by the 8 Litigants, because that order is the final order, in accordance with Clause 76, 2^nd Phrase of the Regulations of The Supreme Court’s Grand Meeting, governing the procedures of trying Administrative Cases of B.E. 2543. The Appeal of the 8 Litigants is prohibited by the law, as the reasons respectfully clarified to the Supreme Court of Administration as above.

3. The 8 Litigants would like to add on the clarification of the facts, points of law

which relate to the Public Benefits, of which, should be brought up to be considered, to the Supreme Court of Administration with respect. The aforesaid order from the Administrative Court of Rayong Province which was the order of Lifting the Injunction that had been placed in order to minimize the injurious consequences before the final decision is given, is considered to be the order that effects the rights, freedom and properties of the majority residences of Jomthien Complex Condotel and the

surrounding areas in the negative way. The Supreme Court of Administration was aware of the importance of placing the Injunction to minimize injurious consequences, as requested by the 10 litigants, therefore, the Supreme Court ordered the 2^nd Plaint Receiver to hold the construction of the part of the building which is higher than 14 meters from the road surface. If the building is built up to 27 floors or 81 meters high, it will block the sunlight, the sea view and the wind from the ocean to the building of the 8 Litigants, also it will impact the environmental conditions, health conditions and quality of lives on other dimensions of the 8 Litigants and many people who live in this building. Whatever the result of this case will be, however, the damages will finally be too much to be remedied for the 8 Litigants and other people.

The 8 Litigants are also aware of the errors in many matters of facts and points of law of the interpretation of the Construction Control Acts, by the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, to enforce the law in the order given, by interpreting that, …. The area which prohibit the buildings with the height over 14 meters is fixing at the distance of 200 meters from the Construction Control Line, which is the distance of 100 meters out into the sea from the Mean Sea Level at the coast line…, was the interpretation that make the Construction Control Area of The Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) becomes 11 meters narrower than the Issue 8 (B.E. 2519). This result is in contrary to the intentions and purposes of the law which was issued to protect the environmental conditions along the sea sides. This point was revealed by the 8 Litigants in the Appeal of 15^th February 2008.

With the reasons, facts and points of law that have been mentioned above, the fact shows that in Clause 100, 1^st Phrase of the Regulations of the Supreme Court’s Grand Meeting, governing the procedures of trying the Administrative Cases of B.E. 2543, stipulated that, the judicial decision or the order of the First Administrative Court, which was not stipulated to be final by the law or by this Regulations, the Appeal can be lodged to the Supreme Court of Administration. Thereby, the order of lifting the Injunction which was given by the First Administrative Court, was not stipulated to be the final order in accordance with the law or the aforesaid Regulations, which ordered to lift the Injunction, therefore, the 9 Litigants have the right to lodge the Appeal against the order from the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, to the Supreme Court of Administration as stipulated in Clause 49 / 1 of the same Regulations. Also the order of lifting the Injunction is the type of order that creates the negative impacts to the rights, freedom, environmental conditions and properties of the 8 Litigants and a lot of people who live around the dispute building. The Appeal of the 8 Litigants is also consist of the suitable matters which needed to be considered to set The Standard form the Supreme Court of Administration. The 8 Litigants request with respect, for the Supreme Court of Administration to replace the order of rejection of the Administrative Court of Rayong Province by accepting the Appeal which was lodged by the 8 Litigants, therefore, the justice will be served.

Respectfully Yours,

Signature: ……………………. The Approved Persons of the 8 Litigants

Miss Jeerisumai Na. Nongkai, Miss Patjama Plagaid, Mr. Teerapan Pankiri,

Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam

[surfer]

good on you and keep it up stop VT7 and all others opposing the over the top, rediculous, ugly coastal developments like vt7, vt 8,9,10 and beyond!!!!.

I do not wish to take away from your lengthy post just a short one,...... it appears you have listed the building control lines (set back lines as I usually call them) that I am familiar with in Phuket, Krabi and Samui. And they were genreally interpreted and enforced as you say, only one way, never out to sea and back again....

now i will finish reading your post, it is a bit to take in!

[lookat]

I found the below quotation on stopvt7 blog from the English translation of the January 16, 2008 court order lifting the injunction.

“The Litigant and 9 Associates filed a motion dated 15 January 2008 to clarify on matter of fact and matter of law which can be summarized that the ten Litigants accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point. (Note this is not what we said!)”

Could stopvt7 group or someone explain why 9 litigant’s lawyers agreed with the expert witness, city hall and vt7 to “measure into the sea”? I don’t understand after reading your appeal how this could of happen? Who were thier lawyers?

Were their lawyers having tea with expert witness, city hall and vt7?

[Tammi]

I found the below quotation on stopvt7 blog from the English translation of the January 16, 2008 court order lifting the injunction.

“The Litigant and 9 Associates filed a motion dated 15 January 2008 to clarify on matter of fact and matter of law which can be summarized that the ten Litigants accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point. (Note this is not what we said!)”

Could stopvt7 group or someone explain why 9 litigant’s lawyers agreed with the expert witness, city hall and vt7 to “measure into the sea”? I don’t understand after reading your appeal how this could of happen? Who were thier lawyers?

Were their lawyers having tea with expert witness, city hall and vt7?

Lawyers were Asia LawWorks on Tepparasit Road. I don't understand either how the lawyer(s) suddenly apparently became so "mouthless". I think I have read here that litigants have hired a new lawyer.

Is Jomthien Condotel using Asia LawWorks for its Regatta problem?

Edited April 7, 2008 by Tammi

[prospero]

I found the below quotation on stopvt7 blog from the English translation of the January 16, 2008 court order lifting the injunction.

“The Litigant and 9 Associates filed a motion dated 15 January 2008 to clarify on matter of fact and matter of law which can be summarized that the ten Litigants accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point. (Note this is not what we said!)”

Could stopvt7 group or someone explain why 9 litigant’s lawyers agreed with the expert witness, city hall and vt7 to “measure into the sea”? I don’t understand after reading your appeal how this could of happen? Who were thier lawyers?

Were their lawyers having tea with expert witness, city hall and vt7?

Lawyers were Asia LawWorks on Tepparasit Road. I don't understand either how the lawyer(s) suddenly apparently became so "mouthless". I think I have read here that litigants have hired a new lawyer.

Is Jomthien Condotel using Asia LawWorks for its Regatta problem?

Jomtien Condotel is no longer using ALW for it's R*g*tt* problem.

[stopvt7]

Let me explained where the statement came from that “you measure into the sea”. It was at the very first Rayong Admin Court hearing that the Pattaya City Hall lawyer said “you measure into the sea”. He claimed the Issue 9 map with an arrow “100 meters” written next to it and pointing to the land means your measure the opposite direction into the sea 100 meters from MSL, before you measure onto the land 100 meters. Therefore, The Regulations meaning of Issue 8 and 9 are the same construction control line from where you measure onto the land. Yes this is a screwy statement! The statement by the city hall lawyer was later proven to be wrong. Because Issue 8 you measure from high-tide while Issue 9 measurements are made from MSL onto the land.

How could the judge believe this story? Well, he did not believe Pattaya City Hall lawyer story that an arrow pointing to the land means you measure into the sea. Then court place and injunction on the building site which stop all the construction work.

After the injunction, at the second court hearing in Rayong the Judge requested an expert witness from Bangkok City Planning to testify. And asked him the question concerning to “measure into the sea before you measure onto the land”. He was not able to answer. He said he did not understand the technics used by the city hall lawyer’s in making the statement about “measuring into the sea”.

After this hearing the judge issued an court order for the Bangkok City Planning to do the survey from MSL to find the location on VT7 building.

After the survey, and at the last court hearing on January 15, 2008 the Bangkok City Planning expert witness gave their report. This report did not answer the court order question which was requested by the judge. Which was where VT7 building was in located from MSL. Now their a change in the expert witness. In explaining he measured from MSL into the sea a 100 meters before he measured onto the land a 100 meter from MSL and he did not reach the VT7 building. The judge then had to questioned him to answers the court order as to the location of VT7 building. He told the judge it was about 103 meters onto the land from MSL after measuring into the sea 100 meters. What B.S!

Asia LawWorks shocked and surprised our group of 10 by never question the expert witness. Where dose his claim that you measure into the sea come from because it is not written in the regulationors on the maps!

Then Amnat Thiengtham and Markus Klemm of Asia LawWorks filed a report agreeing with the court expert witness. They (Amnat Thiengtham and Markus Klemm of Asia LawWorks) claimed also you measure into the sea before you measure onto the land but they thought you measure from high tide. This you can read in January 16, 2008 Court Order which the jugde states. “The Litigant and 9 Associates filed a motion dated 15 January 2008 to clarify on matter of fact and matter of law which can be summarized that the ten Litigants accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point.”

I felt betrayal by Amnat Thiengtham and Markus Klemm of Asia LawWorks after read the English translation of their court filing. The Group of 10 don’t agreed with this statement made by Asia LawWorks in the court order! “accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point.” This statement to the court I consider is a breach of contract to represent the group of ten by Asia LawWorks.

Asia LawWorks after the hearing never offered or correct their miss leading and false court written testimony.

Then we dismissed ( FIRED ) Asia LawWorks lawyers after that court January 15 court hearing and we feel for just cause!

Then we hired a new lawyers Khun Surachai Trong-ngam and his law firm from Bangkok and they filed our appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

[prospero]

Let me explained where the statement came from that “you measure into the sea”. It was at the very first Rayong Admin Court hearing that the Pattaya City Hall lawyer said “you measure into the sea”. He claimed the Issue 9 map with an arrow “100 meters” written next to it and pointing to the land means your measure the opposite direction into the sea 100 meters from MSL, before you measure onto the land 100 meters. Therefore, The Regulations meaning of Issue 8 and 9 are the same construction control line from where you measure onto the land. Yes this is a screwy statement! The statement by the city hall lawyer was later proven to be wrong. Because Issue 8 you measure from high-tide while Issue 9 measurements are made from MSL onto the land.

How could the judge believe this story? Well, he did not believe Pattaya City Hall lawyer story that an arrow pointing to the land means you measure into the sea. Then court place and injunction on the building site which stop all the construction work.

After the injunction, at the second court hearing in Rayong the Judge requested an expert witness from Bangkok City Planning to testify. And asked him the question concerning to “measure into the sea before you measure onto the land”. He was not able to answer. He said he did not understand the technics used by the city hall lawyer’s in making the statement about “measuring into the sea”.

After this hearing the judge issued an court order for the Bangkok City Planning to do the survey from MSL to find the location on VT7 building.

After the survey, and at the last court hearing on January 15, 2008 the Bangkok City Planning expert witness gave their report. This report did not answer the court order question which was requested by the judge. Which was where VT7 building was in located from MSL. Now their a change in the expert witness. In explaining he measured from MSL into the sea a 100 meters before he measured onto the land a 100 meter from MSL and he did not reach the VT7 building. The judge then had to questioned him to answers the court order as to the location of VT7 building. He told the judge it was about 103 meters onto the land from MSL after measuring into the sea 100 meters. What B.S!

Asia LawWorks shocked and surprised our group of 10 by never question the expert witness. Where dose his claim that you measure into the sea come from because it is not written in the regulationors on the maps!

Then Amnat Thiengtham and Markus Klemm of Asia LawWorks filed a report agreeing with the court expert witness. They (Amnat Thiengtham and Markus Klemm of Asia LawWorks) claimed also you measure into the sea before you measure onto the land but they thought you measure from high tide. This you can read in January 16, 2008 Court Order which the jugde states. “The Litigant and 9 Associates filed a motion dated 15 January 2008 to clarify on matter of fact and matter of law which can be summarized that the ten Litigants accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point.”

I felt betrayal by Amnat Thiengtham and Markus Klemm of Asia LawWorks after read the English translation of their court filing. The Group of 10 don’t agreed with this statement made by Asia LawWorks in the court order! “accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point.” This statement to the court I consider is a breach of contract to represent the group of ten by Asia LawWorks.

Asia LawWorks after the hearing never offered or correct their miss leading and false court written testimony.

Then we dismissed ( FIRED ) Asia LawWorks lawyers after that court January 15 court hearing and we feel for just cause!

Then we hired a new lawyers Khun Surachai Trong-ngam and his law firm from Bangkok and they filed our appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

What StopVT7 neglected to mention is that Klem and Amnat charged huge fees for their services. Unlike most law firms here, they charged by the hour, insisting that they were worth it and that they were better attorneys than the other local lawyers.

They sold the Jomtien Condotel co-owners the same bill of goods. Like, the Jomtien Complex committee, the Jomtien Condotel committee has dumped them. Another attorney is handling Jomtien Condotel's recently filed case at the Administrative Court against another developer.

[Tammi]

I need my memory refreshed. Did the land on beach side of Jomthien Complex originally belong to Jomthien Complex? Did JC sell the land? Was it sold with the full agreement of all the co-owners? Why was it sold?

[stopvt7]

prospero wrote: “Another attorney is handling Jomtien Condotel's recently filed case at the Administrative Court against another developer.”

I have been told for month they were going to file. Has Jomtien Condotel's real filed their case? Do you know the court and case number?

[Tammi]

prospero wrote: “Another attorney is handling Jomtien Condotel's recently filed case at the Administrative Court against another developer.”

I have been told for month they were going to file. Has Jomtien Condotel's real filed their case? Do you know the court and case number?

I have heard case is filed and they go to court today (?) for something or other.

[stopvt7]

Socket again!

Amnat runs for Pattaya city council!

I was told by a Thai, Amnat is a member of city council? Could this explain his action? Did he sue himself as a part of Pattaya city government or did he act that he could be part of city goverment?

[Tammi]

Socket again!

Amnat runs for Pattaya city council!

I was told by a Thai, Amnat is a member of city council? Could this explain his action? Did he sue himself as a part of Pattaya city government or did he act that he could be part of city goverment?

Who is Amnat?

[bobbin]

stopvt7

Geez man, please have your posts translated into English before posting.

[Tammi]

stopvt7

Geez man, please have your posts translated into English before posting.

I bet there's a lot of things you are not so good at.

stopvt7 gets his message across and that's what communication is about.

But who IS Amnat?

[kubota]

stopvt7

Geez man, please have your posts translated into English before posting.

I bet there's a lot of things you are not so good at.

stopvt7 gets his message across and that's what communication is about.

But who IS Amnat?

"Then Amnat Thiengtham and Markus Klemm of Asia LawWorks filed a report agreeing with the court expert witness. "