VT7 has responded to our Supreme Administrative Court appeal। Their fist two points of their answer to our appeal have already been rejected by the Supreme Court. The only thing they bring new is the Bangkok Department of City Planning and Civil Engineer office report. This report was not need or we feel it is inaccuracy when it claims to measure into the sea 100 meters from the control construction line at MSL before you measure onto the land 100 meters.
This claim by Bangkok Department of City Planning and Civil Engineer ignore The darting minuted which are part of the regulation। These minutes state measured from the construction control line according to the map annexed, from the sea towards the shore shall not be permitted to construct the following types of buildings (8) Building of 14 meters above the road surface.” “Further amendment was to delete the wording “towards the shore” since the wording was clearly understood,”
We look forward to Supreme Court decision because they have reversely answered The VT7 claims before when in August 2007 they said:
Nevertheless,............. the Ministerial Regulation No. 9...................... prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map………………….. on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. 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 permission of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No।
The Supreme Court, therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2007, on the part exceeding 14 meter height. On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise.
Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich Judge of Supreme Administrative Court”
Translation Copy of document
Supreme Court of Administration vt7 reply
PLAINT No.: 486 / 2008
(Case of the Administrative of Rayong province)
Explanation of 2nd Plaint Receivers Black Case No.: 54 / 2007
( to object the Appeal of the Plaintiffs) Red Case No.: ……………
The Supreme Court of Administration August 13, 2008
Mr. Tenbult Alewis Maria and 10 Associates Plaintiffs
Between
Pattaya City Hall Official and 2 Associates Plaint Receivers
I, hereby View Thalay Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd., by Mr. Preecha Techamuan- waiwit, the appointed person # 2nd………………........... Plaint Receiver,
Would like to submit this explanation to object “the Appeal against the rejection order of the Administrative of Rayong Province” which ordered to reject the Appeal) of date: February 15, 2008, of the Plaintiff # 1st and Associates ( Plaint No.: 486 / 2008) as will show in the following statements;
1. In this case; by the cause of the Order issued on January 16, 2008
by the Administrative Court of Rayong Province to lift the procedure of minimizing injurious consequences / or temporary protection before judgment, which was the order given to the 2nd Plaint Receiver to temporary seize the construction of the part of the building which was higher than 14 meters above the ground until the judgment or another order is given, therefore, from now ( January 16, 2008) on.
The Plaintiffs lodged the Appeal against the Order of the Administrative Court of Rayong Province which ordered on January 16, 2008 and canceled the temporary procedure of minimizing injurious consequences or protection procedure, which both parties were informed by facsimiles on the aforementioned date.
The Plaintiffs lodged the Appeal against the aforementioned order but the Administrative Court of Rayong rejected that Appeal.
The Plaintiffs then lodged the Appeal against that rejection order to the Supreme Court of Administration, and the Supreme Court was not in agreement with the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, therefore the Supreme Court gave an order to accept the Appeal of the Plaintiffs which lodged on February 15, 2008 to the consideration.
The 2nd Plaint Receiver, by the appointed person: Mr. Preecha Techamuanwaiwit, in capacity of the other party in the appeal, received an order to submit an explanation (Plaint No.: 486 / 2008) from The Supreme Court on July 30, 2008.
The 2nd Plaint Receiver, therefore would like to submit the objection to the Supreme Court of Administration of which will state the matters in the following clarifications.
2. The summary received from analyzing the matters in the Appeal
against the order of January 15, 2008 of the Plaintiffs are ; The Plaintiffs considered that; the Order of lifting Injunction which ordered by the Administrative Court of Rayong province, by using the facts reported by the Department of City Planning and Civil Engineer of Bangkok, issued on December 18, 2007, together with the facts from enquiring the witnesses of this case, the facts revealed that the disputed building is located more than 100 meters from the Mean Sea Level (MSL) which was considered by the court that if the measurement was started from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed map of the Royal Decree, which stipulated the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to be enforced over the regions of Banglamung Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi province in 2521, which is fixed at a 100 meters from MSL, outward in the sea as shown in the aforementioned Annexed Map and witnesses’ testimony; the dispute building is located over 200 meters from the Borderline of Construction Control Area as stipulated in the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 as well. Therefore the facts which had been used by the court to consider placing the injunction / or procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment as requested by the 10 Plaintiffs of this case has changed; therefore was unlawful because it was the way of using the facts, construing and enforcing the law by the Administrative Court of Rayong Province in the way which is truly in opposite to the intentions or purposes of the law.
The Plaintiffs therefore requested the Supreme Court to order the injunction to continue being enforced as requested by all Plaintiffs,
3. The 2nd Plaint Receiver would like to inform the Supreme Court that the measurements to find the distance of 100 meters which was measured from MSL to the constructed land had been done for 3 times as follow;
1) The First time had been proceeded by the Pattaya City Hall Official, Chonburi Province; as requested by the 2nd Plaint Receiver in BE. 2548, before this case was submitted in court. The measurement of 100 meters then was started at the MSL of the coastline by the North side. It passed through a public area for 49.00 meters and measured into the dispute land for another 51.00 meters. Then the result would be a 100 meters from MSL. For the south side; It passed through a public area for 49.50 meters and measured into the dispute land for another 50.50 meters. Then the result would be a 100 meters from MSL for this side as shown in the Attachment NO.1.
2) The Second time had been proceeded by the Department of City Planning and Civil Engineering of Chonburi province in April 2007, after the 2nd Plaint Receiver received the order to seize the construction with the dispute license until another order or the judgment is given ( which had caused extreme un-estimated lose and damage to the 2nd Plaint Receiver ) . The second measurement of 100 meters then was started at the MSL of the coastline by the North side. It passed through a public area for 51.00 meters and measured into the dispute land for another 49.00 meters. Then the result would be a 100 meters from MSL. For the south side; It passed through a public area for 49.75 meters and measured into the dispute land for another 50.25 meters. Then the result would be a 100 meters from MSL for this side as shown in the Attachment NO.2.
3) The Third time had been proceeded by The Bangkok Department of City Planning and Civil Engineer officials, which was proceeded between November 15 – 17, 2007, following the order of the Administrative Court of Rayong Province. The result of measurement was shown in the report of December 18, 2007 of that Department which had been submitted to the Administrative Court of Rayong Province. This report showed the correction of the first 2 measurement methods in all details.
4) Considering the Annexed map of the Royal Decree which stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Acts of Be. 2479 over the regions of Nongplalai, Naguea, Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi province in BE. 2521, the result showed that the Construction Control line. Stated in the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 (BE. 2519), stipulated following the Construction Control Acts of BE. 2479, and had been amended by the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9 (BE. 2521), stipulated following the Construction Control Acts of BE. 2521, would be fixed at the 100 meters outward in the sea from the MSL, therefore, when the enquiry of this case by the court showed that the distance of disputed building which received the disputed construction permit of this case is over 100 meters from the MSL. It’s considered without any doubt that the disputed building is also located over 200 meters from the Borderline of Construction Control Area by the seaside. The construction permit is lawful by all stipulations.
The 2nd Plaint Receiver honestly see that the order of lifting injunction /or procedure of minimizing injurious consequences before judgment which had ordered by the Administrative court of Rayong is appropriate.
I, hereby respectfully request the Supreme Court of Administration to give an order or judgment to lift the Appeal of the Plaintiffs.
Respectfully Yours,
- Signed - 2nd Plaintiff
Mr. Preecha Techamuanwaiwit
Appointed person
25 comments:
Are Pattaya condo developer sharing in greasing the wheel?
The judgement process is so long. I am already living in a cave. Vt7 seems to have a good plan stepwisely to twist the law. Let s see the power of money.
Make all the allegations you want but 3 separate measurements all tell the same story. VT7 is legal and outside the 200 meter restricted construction zone. The SC will come to the same conclusion.
Of course VT7 is not legal. It would be a great and strong statement to knock it down to 14 metres which is the actual legal height limit at 200m from the MSL.
Good luck stop vt7, may you help in sending a strong message to all.
The only message sent is an American with a lots of time on his hands and spending other people's money can bully others. VT7 is clearly within the law and that's why construction continues.
VT7 is not clearly within the law.
Many buildings/ developments in Thailand are completed in total disreguard of the real legal building regulations which are put in place to protect life, the environment investors etc.
Many buildings/ developments here in Thailand are not completed and lay in concrete/ steel waste from 1% to 99% from the finished promise. Often due to the overconfidence of developers and government officials to manipulate various parties through financial gifts or various threats. Not always because of economic disaster.
This is all fact and so easy to see in Thailand as elsewhere. Open the other eye it helps.
Then have another look at your beloved lump of concrete and re-bar.
“Are Pattaya condo developer sharing in greasing the wheel?”
I posed this question because I’m get asked all the time about it! By people who say they now clearly understand Issue 9 and that the law is on our side. But many think it could happen.
I do not think it is possible and we expect a fair decision from the Supreme Administrative Court. This new court has act honorable and you can read many newspaper articles about their fair orders.
Do not under estimate the importance of the case. You can not out guess a court but we look forward and want to see a strong ruling.
Yes, we expect to win!
"I posed this question because I’m get asked all the time about it!"...Why would anybody ask you anything? You obviously don't know the law and even fellow JCC condo owners can see through your act.
"Many buildings/ developments in Thailand are completed in total disreguard of the real legal building regulations which are put in place to protect life, the environment investors etc.
Many buildings/ developments here in Thailand are not completed and lay in concrete/ steel waste from 1% to 99% from the finished promise. Often due to the overconfidence of developers and government officials to manipulate various parties through financial gifts or various threats. Not always because of economic disaster." Some truth but primarily in Bangkok. The % here in Pattaya is very, very small.
This is all fact and so easy to see in Thailand as elsewhere. Open the other eye it helps.
"Then have another look at your beloved lump of concrete and re-bar." Sorry not my lump of concrete and re-bar, I live in VT2.
I regret every single word of support I've given to stopvt7 and cohorts. Even the cause for protection of Thailand's beaches that they hide behind isn't worth being associated with such lying lowdown scumsuckers as whoever it is/are that writes script for stopvt7. You are an embarrassment to all of the decent people who supported you and to the poor slobs who have to pay your bills.
15 September, 2008
Info to all vt7 investors it mite be possible that you can sue ThaiBob for your loses. Because he is violated Thai law by given false legal advise by twisting the court word of a decision! The quote from ThaiBob “Supreme Court wrote on June 19, 2008, "When the measurement is made 100 meters outward to the sea, then it will be the Construction Control Boundary that shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to use the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to take control over the regions of ........................., then made another 100 meters from the aforesaid point into the land, then it will be the distance of 200 meters of the Construction Control Boundary, as stipulated in clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations”.
Thai Bob a idiot to rewrite the meaning of a SC decision then give legal advise!!
The pot calls the kettle black! Jerk.
"Info to all vt7 investors it mite be possible that you can sue ThaiBob for your loses. Because he is violated Thai law by given false legal advise by twisting the court word of a decision! The quote from ThaiBob "Supreme Court wrote on June 19, 2008, "When the measurement is made 100 meters outward to the sea, then it will be the Construction Control Boundary that shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to use the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to take control over the regions of ........................., then made another 100 meters from the aforesaid point into the land, then it will be the distance of 200 meters of the Construction Control Boundary, as stipulated in clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations”.
Thai Bob a idiot to rewrite the meaning of a SC decision then give legal advise!!"
...I think I found the post on TV. Looks like he (TB) quoted the SC correctly when looking at the June 19 document on this blog:
"When the measurement is made 100 meters outward to the sea, then it will be the Construction Control Boundary that shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to use the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to take control over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521, then made another 100 meters from the aforesaid point into the land, then it will be the distance of 200 meters of the Construction Control Boundary, as stipulated in clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which had been amended by adding the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521), which stipulated to be in accordance with The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which stated to prohibit the building with the height over 14 meters from the road surface. The measurement result reported that the building of 2nd Plaint Receiver is not in the boundary of 200 meters."
I am not sure what legal advice he gave.
So now you lost the case, you are going to sue ThaiBob.... lol. Thi is getting more and more rediculous.
Well... let's see if this one holds... YOU, Richard are deleting all comments and don't agree with your questionable opinion (opinion, not facts!!) from this very site!!!!
So... who's the real censormaster here?
It seems that you cannot handle people who dont agree with you and decide that everybody who doesnt join your opinion, is trying to bring you down and is also ready for mental treatment.
Grow up (I know it sounds funny to say this to a 60+ guy) and learn to deal with other opinions.
So now you lost the case, you are going to sue ThaiBob.... lol. This is getting more and more ridiculous.
How can somebody who isn't a lawyer, be sued for giving wrong "legal advice"?
I like this little guy, he makes me laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In writing a court order the judges first write their understanding of each side’s argument. Which gives synopsis of the question before the court? Then they make the conclusion and give their order to the case at the end on the document.
You do not take words from the synopsis and claim it part of an order being claimed by the court. As some (ThaiBob) is doing? When reading a court order go near the end and look for the word “therefore” and after this you read what the courts thinking and their order. Below is the answered to the last court order.
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, 1st phrase of the mentioned regulations. The First Court of Administration 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)
Remember we are the only group posting the court orders and all other blogs get their information from us, we are not responsible for the miss uses or false advice at other blogs!
thai visa is crap.... the pro vt7 writers there are pathetic, boring and just repeat the same old rubbish......
"thai visa is crap.... the pro vt7 writers there are pathetic, boring and just repeat the same old rubbish......" Very insightful post. Best check the number of duplicate (I meant copy and paste) posts stopVT7 has made.
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, 1st phrase of the mentioned regulations. The First Court of Administration 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.
WOWOWOWOWOW... you got the right to appeal.... and then???? Thi was february. Please stay honest and post your loss. The court has spoken meanwhile. Or are you still collecting money from your co-owners in JCC??? Thats sick.
WOWOWOWOWOW... you got the right to appeal.... and then???? Thi was february. Please stay honest and post your loss. The court has spoken meanwhile. Or are you still collecting money from your co-owners in JCC??? Thats sick.
Did anybody understand this ???
As your site appears to represent the legal arm of JCC, a few questions - relevant particularly if this case is lost:
1.) Will JCC pursue a legal case based on any other of VT7's actionable tactics - EIA approval; pile driving; safety of ground for highrise; purchase of land already committed to other purpose?
2.) Will JCC sue the developers of their condo for breach of promise, misrepresentation, unethical & illegal sale of the condo owners common property?
Is any of this being considered?
to my opinion, we have to take legal action against all listed. I will always support.
co owner
"As your site appears to represent the legal arm of JCC, a few questions - relevant particularly if this case is lost:
1.) Will JCC pursue a legal case based on any other of VT7's actionable tactics - EIA approval; pile driving; safety of ground for highrise; purchase of land already committed to other purpose?
2.) Will JCC sue the developers of their condo for breach of promise, misrepresentation, unethical & illegal sale of the condo owners common property?
Is any of this being considered?"....Why presume the case is lost? Why not have a more positive attitude? However, if the case is lost, then #1 would be doubtful. Regarding #2, is the old developer still doing business in Thailand and can be sued?
"Regarding #2, is the old developer still doing business in Thailand and can be sued?"
well actually that's a part of the question.
Post a Comment