2010 POLITICAL VIOLENCE
Centralworld verdicts 'set no precedent'
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- A ruling by the Civil Court regarding the arson attack on CentralWorld could not be used as precedent for other related cases, said a vice president of the Law Society yesterday.

Kriengsak Woramongkolchai said that although the cases all stemmed from the arson attack on the shopping complex following the May 2010 protests, the court could give different rulings depending on information and evidence presented at trial.

Kriengsak was commenting in response to the four ruling issued by the Civil Court so far. One described the arson attack as an act of terrorism while the other three ruled it an act of riot.

Kriengsak, who has helped businesses affected by the incident seek government compensation, said the Civil Court ruled on August 16, 2011, that the arson attack was targeted to have political impact and so was an act of terrorism, with insurers not liable to pay compensation.

But in December 2011, the Civil Court ordered Muang Thai Insurance to pay Bt16.5 million in compensation to CentralWorld because no organisation confirmed the arson was a terrorist attack.

"Each civil case will depend on evidence presented by the plaintiff and defendant and weighed up by the court to produce a ruling. So each ruling will not set a precedent," Kriengsak said.

On March 5, the Civil Court ordered Deves Insurance to pay Bt1.97 billion in compensation to CentralWorld on grounds that the arson was not a terrorist attack.

In another case, the Civil Court ordered Deves Insurance to pay compensation of Bt2.7 billion to CentralWorld plus compensation for damage to the shopping mall's business.


-- The Nation 2013-03-08

We wait for the insurance Co's to appeal

How is arson a civil case? <deleted> - this country is weird in so many ways...

"Each civil case will depend on evidence presented by the plaintiff and defendant and weighed up by the court to produce a ruling.

Should read:

"Each civil case will depend on evidence presented by the plaintiff and defendant and the brown envelopes weighed up by the court to produce a ruling.