Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[stopvt7]

Dear prospero

Admin Supreme Court will NOT even consider “mitigate damages for the investors of VT7”. That issue is not a part of any question in front of the courts or a public benefit issue.

The Admin Supreme Court doesn’t have authority “mitigate damages for the investors of VT7.” Admin Court is only for issue between government or between civil and government. To “mitigate damages for the investors of VT7” would be a civil matter first heard in the local Pattaya courts.

People have talked of VT7 influence? I understand VT7 has local influence.

[ThaiBob]

Dear prospero

...... “mitigate damages for the investors of VT7”. ........

Not my words. Point being the "We won" crowd has not won anything at this point in time. If the construction was stopped again then you would have had a temporary win until the final Rayong's Court decision. All I see is a lot of speculation when people don't know the details. Some people think the SC will pre-empt the lower construction decision. That's putting the cart before the horse. First the lower court (Rayong) makes a final ruling and then the loser probably apppeals to the SC. I think the litigants can look forward to a long and costly litigation process. In the meantime, what floor are they building now?

[lookat]

A win at the Supreme Court is a big deal in any country

To “mitigate damages for the investors of VT7” could not this be heard in local bankruptcy court?

[prospero]

<br />

Dear prospero<br />...... "mitigate damages for the investors of VT7". ........

<br /><br />Not my words. Point being the "We won" crowd has not won anything at this point in time. If the construction was stopped again then you would have had a temporary win until the final Rayong's Court decision. All I see is a lot of speculation when people don't know the details. Some people think the SC will pre-empt the lower construction decision. That's putting the cart before the horse. First the lower court (Rayong) makes a final ruling and then the loser probably apppeals to the SC. I think the litigants can look forward to a long and costly litigation process. In the meantime, what floor are they building now?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I didn't notice any significant activity on the construction sight today or yesterday. Whatever floor they're building now is one they very well have to take down. That means the investors in VT7 might have to pay for a round-trip ticket.

The fact that the Supreme Court has asked City Hall to address the "public benefits" claim of the plaintiffs is indeed significant. It means that the court is viewing this case as much more than City Hall/VT7 against Jomtien Complex. They see Issue 9 as an matter for all of Thailand's beaches -- including Phuket and Hua Hin. The consequences of the two-hundred meter regulation being breached is a very important matter, not limited to across the street from the Dongtarn Police Station.

[ThaiBob]

<br />

Dear prospero<br />...... "mitigate damages for the investors of VT7". ........

<br /><br />Not my words. Point being the "We won" crowd has not won anything at this point in time. If the construction was stopped again then you would have had a temporary win until the final Rayong's Court decision. All I see is a lot of speculation when people don't know the details. Some people think the SC will pre-empt the lower construction decision. That's putting the cart before the horse. First the lower court (Rayong) makes a final ruling and then the loser probably apppeals to the SC. I think the litigants can look forward to a long and costly litigation process. In the meantime, what floor are they building now?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I didn't notice any significant activity on the construction sight today or yesterday. Whatever floor they're building now is one they very well have to take down. That means the investors in VT7 might have to pay for a round-trip ticket.

The fact that the Supreme Court has asked City Hall to address the "public benefits" claim of the plaintiffs is indeed significant. It means that the court is viewing this case as much more than City Hall/VT7 against Jomtien Complex. They see Issue 9 as an matter for all of Thailand's beaches -- including Phuket and Hua Hin. The consequences of the two-hundred meter regulation being breached is a very important matter, not limited to across the street from the Dongtarn Police Station.

At this point the significance is speculation. We are all waiting with abaited breath for stopVT7's editorialized translation of the SC meeting complete with bold fonts, colors, emoticons of text taken out of context. The litigants SC appeal stated,

"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."

which was not addressed in the City/VT reply to their appeal. Note the reference to JCC and the surrounding areas. The SC may have simply asked the City/VT to address this issue and to paint a picture with broad sweeping implications is premature.

[prospero]

<br />

<br />

Dear prospero<br />...... "mitigate damages for the investors of VT7". ........

<br /><br />Not my words. Point being the &quot;We won&quot; crowd has not won anything at this point in time. If the construction was stopped again then you would have had a temporary win until the final Rayong's Court decision. All I see is a lot of speculation when people don't know the details. Some people think the SC will pre-empt the lower construction decision. That's putting the cart before the horse. First the lower court (Rayong) makes a final ruling and then the loser probably apppeals to the SC. I think the litigants can look forward to a long and costly litigation process. In the meantime, what floor are they building now?<br />

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I didn't notice any significant activity on the construction sight today or yesterday. Whatever floor they're building now is one they very well have to take down. That means the investors in VT7 might have to pay for a round-trip ticket. <br /><br />The fact that the Supreme Court has asked City Hall to address the "public benefits" claim of the plaintiffs is indeed significant. It means that the court is viewing this case as much more than City Hall/VT7 against Jomtien Complex. They see Issue 9 as an matter for all of Thailand's beaches -- including Phuket and Hua Hin. The consequences of the two-hundred meter regulation being breached is a very important matter, not limited to across the street from the Dongtarn Police Station.<br />

<br /><br />At this point the significance is speculation. We are all waiting with abaited breath for stopVT7's editorialized translation of the SC meeting complete with bold fonts, colors, emoticons of text taken out of context. The litigants SC appeal stated,<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />which was not addressed in the City/VT reply to their appeal. Note the reference to JCC and the surrounding areas. The SC may have simply asked the City/VT to address this issue and to paint a picture with broad sweeping implications is premature.<br /><br /><br /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

Of course no one can jump to conclusions right now. The Supreme Court's latest ruling came as a surprise, not only to the VT7 lawyer, but to the litigant's lawyer as well. We shall all have to hold our breath to see if the SAC interprets 200 meters from MSL as "100 meters out, 200 meters in". If the court does so rule, it may come as a surprise in places like Phuket, where you never see tall buildings closer that 200 meters from the shore. Hua Hin the same. If Issue 9 means what Pattaya City Hall says it means, be prepared for a real building boom on those beaches. All sorts of luxury hotels may find their sea views obstructed by new ranks of massive structures.

[stopvt7]

Dear Thaibob

You gasping at straws! The Admin Supreme Court Ordered told City Hall and VT to response to our February 16 “Appeal the order of lifting the injunction”

You may read it at; http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Ending Quotation below;

“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.TT 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”

This is what the Admin Supreme Court will be considering.

For the eight still standing together to protect the Thai beaches!

[jpm76]

Dear jpm

The Rayong court order asked only for the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning to fine MSL and measure the location of the VT7 building to MSL. The Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning acted as the expert witness failed to follow a simple court order when they sent their report to the court. The expert witness had to be verbally asked in the court hearing to answer the court order. That why I question if he was a expert witness?

The Supreme Admin Court heard the argument early about "measurement into the sea before you measure on to the land" in VT7 Petition to the Supreme Administrative Court on 8th May 2007

Go to: http://openvt7.blogspot.com/ and read VT7 Petition to the Supreme Administrative Court. Which we won!

The Court rejected the arguments to "measure into the sea" when the court said. "Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2 should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful," i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2."

We do not clutching at straws but we do understand the facts! I also like this little guy!

The Supreme Admin Court has hear the argument May 2007 about" measurement into the sea before you measure onto the land" which they rejected. The expert witness could not read and respond correctly to a Rayong court order. The expert witness report to the Rayong court should had been rejected by the judge because of Clauses 55. We with our lawyers believe Issue 9 and our brief is clearly written and the law is on our side! These are a few reasons why we expect a favorable answer on this Thursday from the Supreme Admin Court.

Dear StopVT7,

Well, I have missed this week of action as I usually only check the postings weekly, and whilst we are on different sides, have different opinions on the matter (largely due to our interests I am sure), and I do not like the way that you have rallied your effort, I still hold to your right to make court appeals etc in accordance with the law, and so I pass on my congratulations to you for this small victory (which may lead to the grand victory, though I hope not).

I think that this has very little to do with a win for Thailand beaches (and never really has), but it sure must be welcomed as a big decision for the JCC 8, else it would have all ended on Thursday for them. You know the saying...it ain't over till the fat lady sings, and I agree with those that suggest that she is not even preparing to warm up yet as there will be plenty of court action before this gets resolved.

Hopefully, they rule in the overall interest of Thailand, and not put weight upon the environmental decision so in vogue in today's world - I respect the environment, but I cannot see what buildings still required to be 100m from the beach harm it.

I am hoping that they use this case to rewrite the Ministerial Issues to clarify them and to write them in the larger interest of Thailand (which includes the economic sphere in a big way), but anyhow, congratulations for your victory on Thursday, despite it going the other way I would have liked.

A word of advice though, drop the charade of being all about everyone else's interests (beaches etc), and just stand up for the fact of why you are really doing this - there is nothing wrong with acting in your own self-interest. Unless you be a holy saint (or an environmental warrior by lifestyle), we would expect you to protect your OWN interests and to have acted as such. I think that you would be much more credible, believable, and would certainly have had more respect from me throughout this process. Then, IF you win this, the JCC owners will have plenty to thank you for (but I really struggle with the fact that they have already been forced to pay for these costs through back hand channels...that is blatant self interest, whether it was you or the influence of others in your crew - it was highly unfair, and in my eyes amounted to a theft of other less interested parties owning in JCC). I am sure that JCC owners made their personal decision when they decided not to join you (it seems that you only have 8 persons interested in fighting this), and so I really struggle that a HOA Board has forced all the owners to pay it. Hey, that it something that timesharing structure Boards do. I would have personally fought the Board on that issue, and perhaps sued them myself if I was there in the situation of the owners and what they were forced to adhere to.

[beginner]

If the court does so rule, it may come as a surprise in places like Phuket, where you never see tall buildings closer that 200 meters from the shore. Hua Hin the same.

Really?

So the Hilton Hotel at Hua Hin is 200 meters from the shore is it?

A quick look at Google Earth will show you that there are many high rise building closer than 200 meters to the beach around Hua Hin.

Edited June 22, 2008 by beginner

[ThaiBob]

If the court does so rule, it may come as a surprise in places like Phuket, where you never see tall buildings closer that 200 meters from the shore. Hua Hin the same.

Really?

So the Hilton Hotel at Hua Hin is 200 meters from the shore is it?

A quick look at Google Earth will show you that there are many high rise building closer than 200 meters to the beach around Hua Hin.

Yes, see post #1480 which has links to Hua Hin satellite images (Google). My recollection is that the Holiday Inn on Patong Beach, Phuket is about 100 meters from the seashore and although not a 32 story building like JCC it is certainly greater than 14 meters.

[stopvt7]

Dear jpm76

Your statement “(but I really struggle with the fact that they have already been forced to pay for these costs through back hand channels...that is blatant self interest, whether it was you or the influence of others in your crew - it was highly unfair, and in my eyes amounted to a theft of other less interested parties owning in JCC).”

Please do not fall for accusation by VT investors without the facts. Our funds first came from volunteers co-owners how supported our group of ten. Why a group of ten is because it only took ten to file the original action in court. Then at the next Annual General Meeting our JCC committee supported a co-owners resolution that passed. This condo owners resolution was offered to take over paying the legal bills for the group of ten. At this AGM their was not one vote against resolution.

Now the JCC committee reviews all legal expends, pay approved billing and approved the hiring of our new Bangkok lawyers. This special legal fund cost is very small compare to the benefits which co-owners will gain by wining on Issue 9. Our legal action is about Issue 9 and the rights to protect one property. Issue 9 is a environment law and one other purpose of this law is to protect tourist beaches. That why we were given money from others which are not co-owners of JCC condos.

Both Thai and farang agree Thailand is a country of laws (Issue 9) and we have rights, self-interest or not, to be protected by this law. The Administrative Court were special set up to protect the Thai and farang rights against wrongful government action. Such as the incorrect issuing of a building permit which violated Issue 9.

VT7 investors should understand the above facts and we wish them no harm. But, we will fight for our protection under the aforesaid regulations. Our action is the first ever case brought to any Thai court using Issue 9. Also we are very able to read maps even thoufgt Pattaya City Hall can not! The Issue 9 map is clear and “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.”

Read our whole appeal which the Admin Supreme Court wlll decide at: http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

[JaiDeeFarang]

If everyone was behind you 100% could you please honestly answer why there are now only 8 plaintiffs and not the original 10?

Congratulations on your small victory, which I see the court had no option but to hear your appeal. The true test will come on the next hearing in 26 days. From previous statements you gave the impression that the appeal had been lodged and accepted anyway. So in reality this 'victory' is nothing new to me, just wait until the verdict and I believe you'll be changing your "We won" comment, which you seem so keen to use, when in actual fact you haven't won anything and building is progressing. No doubt when the appeal doesn't go in your favour you'll be saying that the 30 days between the hearings allowed plenty of time for a tea party!

[Wiresok]

We are where we are because the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court want to hear from the horses mouth ("expert witness"), how they managed to get the law so wrong 1 year ago when they ruled for the plaintiffs !!

[prospero]

We are where we are because the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court want to hear from the horses mouth ("expert witness"), how they managed to get the law so wrong 1 year ago when they ruled for the plaintiffs !!

I think you're confusing the horse's mouth with another part of the equine anatomy.

[Gary A]

I think everyone can agree that the construction is NOT 200 meters from mean sea level. The question is what will the court do about it. I'm certain that VT, their officials and their lawyers are struggling to find some way around this whether it is to bend the rule, rewrite the rule or find some strange different "legal" interpretation of the rule. I wouldn't be surprised to see sand pumping barges moving the MSL line.

[stopvt7]

We are where we are because the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court want to hear from the horses mouth ("expert witness"), how they managed to get the law so wrong 1 year ago when they ruled for the plaintiffs !!

I think you're confusing the horse's mouth with another part of the equine anatomy.

Ditto!

[TheWalkingMan]

Wow stopvt7,

I thought you guys would get smacked back by the court in Bangkok. Keep up the fight until there is a final decision and win or lose, no one can accuse you of not giving 100% in this fight.

TheWalkingMan

[Pattayaseven]

I do not see a "big win" for any party yet.

Remember the case in the Supreme Administrative court is not whether or not VT 7 is legal or not. The issue at hand is whether or not JCC should have been allowed to appeal the lifting of the injunction at the Rayong court. If the appeal goes through then the injuction will be reinstated until Rayong takes its decision, which I speculate was already made when disregarding the appeal.

[Tammi]

Dear prospero

Your question “the history of Thai courts in removing illegal portions of builds?” When I asked our Bangkok attorneys a seemlier question they sight three samples. Since their been one example talked about in the news paper. I had a meeting with one of are Bangkok Thai advisors who was involved in removing a illegal building in Bangkok.

We are working in the Thai nation courts and I would not challenge their authority. A illegal building can still be illegal even though it had a local building permit. Specially when the local permit breaks the nation law. This is not hard to understand!

We wish no harm to VT7 investors, but have some respect for the King’s court.

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/06/13/opi...on_30075398.php

"We must all pull together to solve our problems

By Thanong Khanthong

[email protected]

The Nation

Published on June 13, 2008

On Wednesday evening at the Chitrlada Palace, His Majesty the King granted an audience to new judges serving the Constitution Court and Administrative Court.

They took an oath of office. They all swore before the King to pursue their judgeship with honesty and integrity.

His Majesty gave the judges his blessing. He also called on them to perform their duty to the utmost to prevent the country from sliding into calamity.

In his speech to the judges of the Administrative Court, the King said: "If you don't perform your duties well enough, it also means that HM the King is not performing his duties well enough. Before this, we had a lot of turmoil. Now don't let more turmoil happen again.

"If we do not do what we have sworn to do, it would create problems. Therefore, you have to be strict with yourself and become stronger in doing your duty, which is performed under the Royal Signature. This means that what His Majesty is doing, you have to do as he does. If you don't perform to your utmost, you'll be in trouble.

"You can foresee what's going to happen. If you don't do or don't help to resolve the problem, not only the four or five of you will be in trouble, everyone will face trouble too. If we're in trouble, we won't get good results. Bad results will bring about calamity. We have already faced calamity before. A bad result will create an even worse situation.

"In your role as Administrative Court judges, you have to help in the administration of this country. Whatever hardship you may face, I wish you success in carrying out your tasks. Let the administration [of the country] not be faced with calamity. Let the administration carry on successfully.

"Since you are knowledgeable and have studied your field, you know what to do. Millions of people will suffer if you fail in your duty. I wish you every success. You have to use your skills and your knowledge in order to succeed in your assignment. Then you'll be able to feel proud of yourselves. HM the King will also feel proud of you.

"If you fail, the work of The King will also be affected. I would like you to have strong determination in what you are doing. Millions of Thais will feel proud of your accomplishments. Then the country will enjoy progress. The benefits will fall on everybody."

I translated HM the King's speech from Thai into English and italicised some of the important sentences. You can feel that His Majesty is very concerned about the situation of the country at the moment. At the same time, you also learn of the uniqueness of Thailand's administration, which has the Monarchy as the symbolic head of all branches of government.

"Therefore, you have to be strict with yourself and become stronger with your duty, which is performed under the Royal Signature. This means that what the HM the King is doing, you have to do like him." By this remark, you come to appreciate the fact that since the Judiciary is performing its duty in the justice system under the auspicious Royal Signature, it has to abide by the highest values of justice as obligated by His Majesty himself. I have found no other beautiful phrase to describe the special symbolic bond between the Monarch and the Judiciary -

"What HM the King is doing, you have to do like him."

Another meaningful remark from His Majesty is: "You have to use your tools and your knowledge in order to succeed in your assignment. Then you'll feel proud with yourself. The King will also feel proud with you." This means that if the Judiciary performs its duty with sound knowledge and the value of justice for all, it will not only create pride for itself but also for the Monarchy.

Finally, HM the King warned that: "If you fail, the work of the King will also face calamity." It means that His Majesty alone can't restore peace and normalcy to the country if other branches of government fail to do their job adequately.

HM the King's speech reflects a unique symbol, the relationship between the Monarchy and other branches of government and the Thai people. More often than not, foreigners and many Thais also do not quite grasp the role of the Monarchy. But as HM the King told Thai diplomats several weeks ago, "We are Thais. Foreigners might look at us as satpralad (strange monster). But we're still Thai."

[beginner]

Dear prospero

Your question "the history of Thai courts in removing illegal portions of builds?" When I asked our Bangkok attorneys a seemlier question they sight three samples. Since their been one example talked about in the news paper. I had a meeting with one of are Bangkok Thai advisors who was involved in removing a illegal building in Bangkok.

So which buildings are you referring to?

Surely not the New World Department store? (after partial collapse of illegal extension).

It doesn't offer much encouragement for those hoping VT7 will be removed. see below

BMA compromises on New World demolition order - The Nation, October 22, 2003

[Even after the decades of stalling and the death of a tenant, the city still could not make the New World Department store comply with demolition orders.]

The demolition of the New World building, which partially collapsed in June, has been delayed due to a dispute between the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and Kaewfa Shopping Arcade Co Ltd over who should do the work, a Civil Court source said yesterday.

But, the BMA in court compromised by asking the company to demolish the building in Bang Lumphu themselves with the agency in a supervisory role to ensure safety, the source said...

It would be a great help to us all if you could give the exact details of when, where and why they were deemed illegal and exactly what was removed.

[Wiresok]

This decision by the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court does not suprise me,and is as I expected.

It is the correct thing to do on the basis of the evidence before it.

They looked past the vt7 smoke and mirrors,and remained consistent in their focus on the facts.

Clearly they are not convinced of the legality of vt7,but I suspect this is just the start of the wider "clean up" Pattaya campaign before it sinks completely.

The plaintiffs will have to be wary however,and stay on guard,because vt7/city hall will no doubt be capable of unearthing another "expert witness" to provide another twist .

What decision? I find it interesting how people can speculate, jump to conclusions, claiming victory (we won!), twist something to suit their own agenda when in fact nobody knows the details of the SC reading. This much we do know. The stopVT7 litigants appealed the Rayong Court decision to remove the construction injuction order. The SC agreed to hear their appeal. The SC instead of giving a ruling apparently has asked the City of Pattaya and VT to address the "public benefits" concerns in the litigants appeal within 30 days. End of story.

One could easily argue that the SC has responsibilty to mitigate damages to all parties concerned if in fact they were leaning one way or the other, and to suspend construction until their final ruling on the appeal. Of course, that didn't happen.

Sounds just like what the vt/city hall team did with the map and issue 9.

SC position hasn't changed from 1 year before.

SC want to know what happened in the Rayong court for it to go against the SC position that vt7 is illegal above 14m.

The SC will want vt/city hall to explain and justify how a 27 storey skyscraper ,infringing the law,directly adjacent to an existing duplex skyscraper is in the public interest,when there is plenty more land available to build it on.

[stopvt7]

I posted The Supreme Court of Administration Decision 19 of June 2008 at:

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

The ending quotation from the decision below:

"Thereby, if the Supreme Court of Administration considers that the matters in the appeal of the litigants is strong, the litigants will loose the temporally protection during trial of the First Court of Administration IN TIME, the matter is considered that the order of lifting the injunction during trial, given by the First Court of Administration is NOT THE PROHIBITED ORDER for appealing during trial, as stated in Clause 100, 2^nd phrase of the regulations of the Grand Administrative Meeting of the Supreme Court, governing the Administrative Procedures of B. E. 2543. Therefore, the 8 Litigants, then have the right to lodge an appeal against the aforementioned order to the Supreme Court of Administration within 30 days from the day of receiving the order given by the First Court of Administration, as stated in Clause 49 /1, 1^st phrase of the mentioned regulations. The First Court of Administration should…………

11

should assign the court officer to send the Appeal against the order dated on 15 February 2551 of the 8 Litigants, including the order of lifting the injunction given by the First Court of Administration and all involving documents / or copies of documents to the Supreme Court of Administration within the short period of time, following Clause 49 / 1 of the same regulations. The decision of giving out the rejection order against the appeal of the 8 Litigants, is not in the agreement with the consideration of the Supreme Court of Administration.

The court, hereby shall give the order to accept the Appeal against the order, dated: 15 February2551 of the 8 Litigants to take under court’s consideration.

Mr. Worapoj Wisarupitch - Signed - (Responsible Judge)

Judge of the Supreme Court of Administration

Mr. Ampol Sighagowin - Signed -

Chief of Judges of the Supreme Court of Administration

Mr. Wichai Cheunchompunoot - Signed -

Judge of the Supreme Court of Administration

Mr. Paiboon Sianggong - Signed -

Judge of the Supreme Court of Administration

Mr. Udomsak Nitimontri

Judge of the Supreme Court of Administration"

[lookat]

Dear prospero

You are right on the issue!

The Admin Supreme Court decided they wanted to hear our appeal because it relates to the Public Benefit and the rule of law. The supreme court doesn't have to hear every case presented to them. It would been easy for them to of ended everything by rejecting our petition. But the accepted our appeal shows their interest in Issue 9.

If they chose View Talay 7 can continue building during the appeal procedure. Which we thing would be very risky because of the interest of the Admin Supreme Court in our appeal. Also the history of Thai courts in removing illegal portions of builds it risky to go on working.

The June 19 order said “The Supreme Court of Administration is however, not in agreement with the consideration of the First Court of Administration on the matter”.........................

The Supreme Court of Administration spook before in their first order by saying “Therefore, ............... Defendant No. 2 (vt7) should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs,.”

Now that they are hearing the appeal does this mean vt7 could be building something the Supreme Court of Administration will not allowed occupied? I would not want to be vt7 investor in this contest.

[ThaiBob]

I posted The Supreme Court of Administration Decision 19 of June 2008 at:

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

The ending quotation from the decision below:

"Thereby, if the Supreme Court of Administration considers that the matters in the appeal of the litigants is strong, the litigants will loose the temporally protection during trial of the First Court of Administration IN TIME, the matter is considered that the order of lifting the injunction during trial, given by the First Court of Administration is NOT THE PROHIBITED ORDER for appealing during trial, as stated in Clause 100, 2^nd phrase of the regulations of the Grand Administrative Meeting of the Supreme Court, governing the Administrative Procedures of B. E. 2543. Therefore, the 8 Litigants, then have the right to lodge an appeal against the aforementioned order to the Supreme Court of Administration within 30 days from the day of receiving the order given by the First Court of Administration, as stated in Clause 49 /1, 1^st phrase of the mentioned regulations. The First Court of Administration should…………

11

should assign the court officer to send the Appeal against the order dated on 15 February 2551 of the 8 Litigants, including the order of lifting the injunction given by the First Court of Administration and all involving documents / or copies of documents to the Supreme Court of Administration within the short period of time, following Clause 49 / 1 of the same regulations. The decision of giving out the rejection order against the appeal of the 8 Litigants, is not in the agreement with the consideration of the Supreme Court of Administration.

The court, hereby shall give the order to accept the Appeal against the order, dated: 15 February2551 of the 8 Litigants to take under court’s consideration.

Mr. Worapoj Wisarupitch - Signed - (Responsible Judge)

Judge of the Supreme Court of Administration

Mr. Ampol Sighagowin - Signed -

Chief of Judges of the Supreme Court of Administration

Mr. Wichai Cheunchompunoot - Signed -

Judge of the Supreme Court of Administration

Mr. Paiboon Sianggong - Signed -

Judge of the Supreme Court of Administration

Mr. Udomsak Nitimontri

Judge of the Supreme Court of Administration"

Thanks for posting this document on your blog. A few questions. Was this the document read buy SC on June 19 and if so was it available to you on May 23? (It seems that Thai courts move no faster than a slug; nearly a month of lost time) On April 6 on TV you posted "FYI: I was informed Friday that the Supreme Administration Court accepted our appeal." From this I thought the SC had accepted your appeal but in reading this document (May 23) it says again the court will accept your case. I was expecting a ruling on your appeal but instead the court has asked for more information (again). So when will the SC actually rule on your appeal to re-instate the construction ban?

[stopvt7]

The decision was read at the Rayong Court on June 19. When it was made public.

The May 23 date is stamped on the order by the Supreme Administrative Court. I think it the date the decision was made.

I guess the difference in dates is a scheduling problem?

I understand city hall and VT7 has 30 days to respond. Before Supreme Administrative Court will schedule their time to decide. When they may decide is their decision.

[fredKroket]

If it legally take 10 plaintiffs to start legal action in the beginning as you said before, and now there are only 8, how can you continue with your case?

You should look into this as it could be trump card against you. IMO the 2 that left must be more smart not to be include in the case.

[prospero]

<br />

<font color="#000080"><b>Dear prospero<br />Your question &quot;the history of Thai courts in removing illegal portions of builds?&quot; When I asked our Bangkok attorneys a seemlier question they sight three samples. </b></font><font color="#000080"><b>Since t</b></font><font color="#000080"><b>heir been one example talked about in the news paper. I had a meeting with one of are Bangkok Thai advisors who was involved in removing a illegal building in Bangkok. <br /></b></font>

<br /><br />So which buildings are you referring to?<br />Surely not the New World Department store? (after partial collapse of illegal extension).<br />It doesn't offer much encouragement for those hoping VT7 will be removed. see below<br /><br /><a href="http://nationmultimedia.com/2004/10/22/national/index.php?news=national_15147916.html" target="_blank">BMA compromises on New World demolition order</a> - <i>The Nation</i>, October 22, 2003<br /> [Even after the decades of stalling and the death of a tenant, the city still could not make the New World Department store comply with demolition orders.] <br /> <i>The demolition of the New World building, which partially collapsed in June, has been delayed due to a dispute between the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and Kaewfa Shopping Arcade Co Ltd over who should do the work, a Civil Court source said yesterday.<br /> But, the BMA in court compromised by asking the company to demolish the building in Bang Lumphu themselves with the agency in a supervisory role to ensure safety, the source said...</i><br /><br />It would be a great help to us all if you could give the exact details of when, where and why they were deemed illegal and exactly what was removed.<br />

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

Property Plus was ordered by the court to remove floors from eleven buildings that breached height limits. The deconstruction is taking place.

Edited June 26, 2008 by prospero

[beginner]

Property Plus was ordered by the court to remove floors from eleven buildings that breached height limits. The deconstruction is taking place.

Yes agreed. But Proprty Plus did not have a building permit for high rise buildings. They changed the design after receiving their low rise permit.

He said the excess height was the result of new designs,...........

the building heights exceed the 23-metre maximum for low-rises under the Building Control Act. Buildings higher than 23 metres need high-rise building construction permits. But Plus could not change the permits easily since high-rise permits require a different setback distance, the space from a building to the boundary of a plot, which varies depending on its height, of at least six metres.

VT7 have not changed the design and they have permisiion to build a high rise which is progressing rapidly.

The VT7 building is 100% legal.

[prospero]

<br />

Property Plus was ordered by the court to remove floors from eleven buildings that breached height limits. The deconstruction is taking place.

<br /><br />Yes agreed. But Proprty Plus did not have a building permit for high rise buildings. They changed the design after receiving their low rise permit.<br /><br /><br /><b>He said the excess height was the result of new designs</b>,...........<br /><b>the building heights exceed the 23-metre maximum for low-rises under the Building Control Act. Buildings higher than 23 metres need high-rise building construction permits.</b> <b>But Plus could not change the permits easily since high-rise permits require a different setback distance, the space from a building to the boundary of a plot, which varies depending on its height, of at least six metres.</b><br /><br /><br />VT7 have not changed the design and they have permisiion to build a high rise which is progressing rapidly.<br />The VT7 building is 100% legal.<br /> <br /><br /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

Until now, I had no idea you were a Justice on the Supreme Administrative Court

[beginner]

Until now, I had no idea you were a Justice on the Supreme Administrative Court

Ho ho Very good.

I am glad that you have a sense of humour. One of us is going to need it before this saga is over.