Thailand's Supreme Court has upheld an order requiring the demolition of buildings on two plots at the Prime Nature Villa development in Bang Phli, Samut Prakan, and the return of more than 100 rai of common land to the estate's juristic person. The ruling concerns land bought by Ing Paskorntee, wife of prominent businessman Korn Paskorntee, from Prime Nature Group Co Ltd. The court found the 2015 sale of two plots was void because the land formed part of the development's communal facilities. The Supreme Court's Consumer Cases Division upheld the Region 1 Appeal Court ruling of 30 June 2022. The original court had dismissed the case before the estate juristic person appealed. Land and facilities must return The court ordered the cancellation of transfers involving title deeds 104795 and 104796, totalling 2 rai, 34.9 square wah, in Racha Thewa, Bang Phli. Ing Paskorntee must remove the structures from those plots and hand them back to Prime Nature Villa's juristic person in good condition. The court also ordered the transfer of six title deeds for the benefit of all plot buyers in the development. They include title deed 1318, covering a central lake of 94 rai, 3 ngan and 44.2 square wah; title deed 98963, which includes the clubhouse, swimming pool, gardens and former sales-office building; the two disputed plots; title deed 98961, the main access road; and title deed 98642, described as a kindergarten or tennis-court site. The estate body, represented by ML Pariyada Diskul and Pornchai Kangwanwanich under a resolution dated 5 May 2017, sued six defendants. They included Prime Nature Group, Prime Nature Villa Co Ltd, the official receiver for Living Lagoon Co Ltd, Phannathrit or Phayu Nueangchamnong, Theeranat Nueangchamnong and Ing Paskorntee. Advertising formed part of the deal The Supreme Court said buyers had been attracted by advertising for facilities including the lake, clubhouse, international school, tennis court and two access routes. Buyers testified that these amenities, despite higher land prices than nearby plots, were material to their decisions. It ruled that the promotional material and project plans formed part of the sales contracts under Section 11 of the Consumer Case Procedure Act 2008. Land advertised as communal infrastructure remained so even if it had not been properly listed in the land-allocation application or registered as an easement. The defendants argued that some plots lay outside the approved development plan. The court rejected that argument, saying it could not deprive buyers of protection where facilities had been presented to them as part of the project. The court said the transfer of title deeds 104795 and 104796 on 12 January 2015 breached the Land Allocation Act 2000. A buyer claiming good faith and payment could not validate a transaction contrary to public-order law, it said. Join the discussion? 30 August 2026
View full article
