S'porean can leave Thailand after 3-year legal tangle ends

Straits Times

Joyce Lim

Ex-landlord had accused him of stealing furniture and damaging house

newsjsBANGKOK: -- A SINGAPOREAN businessman yesterday told of how "happy and relieved" he is to be returning home after being barred from leaving Thailand for more than three years because of a court dispute with his former landlord.

Mr Jaffrey Maharan, who had been accused of stealing furniture and damaging a house, was told on Feb 5 by the Singapore Embassy in Bangkok that the case is closed and he is free to head home.

The 41-year-old, speaking on the phone from the Thai capital, told The Straits Times yesterday: "The embassy staff called me and said that the case is officially closed as no appeal was received by the court before the deadline of Feb 4. I called my lawyer immediately and he confirmed it.

"I am both happy and relieved that everything is finally over. It has been an emotional roller-coaster ride right up until the last minute. But at least now we know that the plaintiff (the landlord) cannot take this farce any further."

Mr Jaffrey received a letter from the court on Monday confirming that his case had been closed, although he must first pay a fine of 20,000 baht (S$830) for overstaying.

He moved to Bangkok in 2006 and set up a furniture export business with Briton Lee Chestnutt, 41. A year later, the duo moved into a rented house, which they also used as a warehouse to store their furniture. When the business took a dive in 2009, they could not afford the rent and decided to move to a smaller, cheaper place, said Mr Jaffrey.

Full story: http://www.singapore...gal-tangle-ends

-- Singapore Law Watch 2013-02-14

RELATED

Lee Chestnutt free to leave Thailand after dispute

It would be handy to know where this dodgy landlord operates. He managed to stuff up a couple of lives for a good few years. Wouldn't like to come across him myself. Anyone know where his place/places are?

It's interesting to note that in this report the immigration department is requiring the maximum overstay payment.

One can't help but see this as a somewhat begrudging action given the tale which has led them here.

But surprised, not I.

Regards

Looks like international pressure helped bitch slap this landlord into submission. God knows how much longer this case may have gone on if the cases hadn't gone global. Legal process is a strange beast here.

Looks like international pressure helped bitch slap this landlord into submission. God knows how much longer this case may have gone on if the cases hadn't gone global. Legal process is a strange beast here.

strange beast?

It's beyond recognition of being a beast, apart from the smells it gives out - of shit, diarrhoea, putrid and rancid vomit, for those who are 'farang' and the contrary for those who are Thai, judging by the legal dealings of the last month handed out........

-mel.

Looks like international pressure helped bitch slap this landlord into submission. God knows how much longer this case may have gone on if the cases hadn't gone global. Legal process is a strange beast here.

strange beast?

It's beyond recognition of being a beast, apart from the smells it gives out - of shit, diarrhoea, putrid and rancid vomit, for those who are 'farang' and the contrary for those who are Thai, judging by the legal dealings of the last month handed out........

-mel.

There never was a rule of law in this country. Just beware .

Why didn't they go to immigration with a letter from the court? They could have got 90 day extensions and avoided the overstay. I know a couple of people who had court cases and did just this.

^ 20K works out cheaper than constantly travelling to immigration and paying extensions, taxis, etc. Not saying it's fair, just saying.

The whole legal side of this BS is a joke, and the court, if it had common sense, would adjudicate accordingly.

It's interesting to note that in this report the immigration department is requiring the maximum overstay payment.

One can't help but see this as a somewhat begrudging action given the tale which has led them here.

But surprised, not I.

Regards

The landlord should be forced to pay for his overstay!!!

It's interesting to note that in this report the immigration department is requiring the maximum overstay payment.

How can he be fined for overstaying if he was ordered to stay here?

Edited February 15, 201313 yr by Morakot

It's interesting to note that in this report the immigration department is requiring the maximum overstay payment.

How can he be fined for overstaying if he was ordered to stay here?

It's in the small print!

-mel.

Assuming it was a civil case, couldn't they now sue the landlord for false accusations causing damages?

Edited February 16, 201313 yr by Payboy

Assuming it was a civil case, couldn't they now sue the landlord for false accusations causing damages?

Yes, it would probably take another 5 years. They probably might not be able to leave again; the landlord will also sue them for defamation as such a new case supposedly would cause damages to him. Two lawyers, at least three opinions.

I notice that no where does he deny that he stole the furniture in question?

Suppose if he did steal the "furniture" which could mean anything (Beds, couches, air conditioners, frig?) in a large house that would be hundreds of thousands...if that was the case I don't see why the landlord shouldn't file a complaint?

Already raises red flags that he's using a residential rented house as a furniture warehouse....

Edited February 16, 201313 yr by dave111223

I notice that no where does he deny that he stole the furniture in question?

Suppose if he did steal the "furniture" which could mean anything (Beds, couches, air conditioners, frig?) in a large house that would be hundreds of thousands...if that was the case I don't see why the landlord shouldn't file a complaint?

Already raises red flags that he's using a residential rented house as a furniture warehouse....

theres an earlier thread on this subject, about 3 weeks ago. From memory, that charge of theft was dropped straight up.

The issue then surrounded damage to furniture. The court ruled against the landlord, but he appealed, and the whole saga went from there.