We have not received the final Supreme Administrative Court decision and we don’t know when it will be make. We have a very good appeal filed and believe it clear that Rayong Administrative Court was mistaken in the explanation of Issue 9. You may read our Appeal below. We kindly wait for their decision and will post any information after receiving.
We thank you for your support and visiting our blog.
The Stopvt7 Group
25 comments:
I was told by a lawyer, that the land office can give the title deeds for VT7. For the land office they do have the legal building permit . Of course it will now all depend on what the supreme courts decision will be.
It is for shure not easy situation and I know many people are waiting for the Final desicion or is this not the final one?
Sorry to burst anyones bubble but the Court has ruled in VT's favor. StopVT7 is right, the formal reading and notifications have not been made....public yet. This came from the Land Office. Sometimes you need to use a little common sense; VT7 was actually finished months ago, the Land Office and VT were waiting for the Okay and now they have processed 100's of deed transfers. As tovenaar noted the build-outs are going forward and even some owners live in their new homes at VT7. VT7 is here to stay!
We are positive as of the date of this posting there has not been a Supreme Administrative Court decision in our legal action against Pattaya City Hall concerning VT7 building permit. Lawyers have many opinions but they are only opinions. I heard many opinions but we are waiting for the facts of the Final Court Decision.
There is no evidence of anyone is living in VT7. So please beware some people comments are faults statements. Or in simpler words “they lie”.
I was in Pattaya Dec 1st to pick up the chanods for my two units in VT7. They were issued on Nov 23rd to my lawyer at City Hall land office.
I have been iside VT 7 to see to the start of the renovations to my units, and there are many many units been worked on at present.
I have also personally been inside a unit that is occupied full time
Would that be considered evidence or must I be "lying"
I read the article of the court on the website of View Talay.
http://www.viewtalaycondo.com/annou_court_decision_march2009.html
I read that all the plaints were dismissed.
"I read the article of the court on the website of View Talay.
http://www.viewtalaycondo.com/annou_court_decision_march2009.html
I read that all the plaints were dismissed."
Yes, you are absolutely correct, the case has been dismissed. Although the Plaintiffs have filed an Appeal, the Supreme Court does not have to hear the Appeal. The Appeal was filed April 30 of last year and here it is almost 9 months later and the SC has not even granted a hearing on the Appeal. It's over.
Green you are right it is all Chinese for the most people!
To read a big lie go to:
http://www.viewtalaycondo.com/annou_court_decision_march2009.html
The Supreme Admin Court will decide the final outcome of this case in 2010.
"To read a big lie go to:
http://www.viewtalaycondo.com/annou_court_decision_march2009.html
The Supreme Admin Court will decide the final outcome of this case in 2010."
Really? The link is actally an accurate summary of the Court ruling, hard as it for you to accept.
Please remember, in June 2007, View Talay filed an Appeal to the Supreme Court and that court accepted the Appeal AND ruled on it within 60 days! The JCC plaintiffs filed an Appeal in March 2008 to reinstate the ban on construction. Again, within 90 days the SC ruled to hear their Appeal.
Do you see the pattern here? The SC does not have to hear the Appeal and neither does it have to say so. In other words, the SC inaction (9 months now!!) on the Appeal should tell you that this case is in effect finished. I have friends who also had their litigation here in Thailand end this way. Sorry, but this is Thailand and that's just the way it is. StopVT7 should close his blog since it no longer services it's purpose.
Mr Open VT7. I do not agree your opinion . A case in Thailand end the same way as the rest of the world.It is ended when the judge put the hammer down and read the final verdict. I know a case from a farrang and this case have taken 17 years in the courts .The Farrang won the case against very big Thai Company ! They told this Farrang that he should stop because he had no chanche to win the case, but he waited until the Judge put the hammer down and read the last verdict. Now he is very proud that the Thai courts make the right decision !
Tovenaar,
17 years? I hope you can wait that long! I hope all the plaintiffs and defendants are still alive then!
Some people think that the Supreme Court examines and retries every case or Appeal. In fact, they review cases based on their merits.
Previously, in 2007 and 2008, the SC has responded quickly to the appeals on both sides of this case.
They sensed the importance of making decisions quickly back then. Today, now that VT7 is complete, it is even more important to act quickly. Use good judgement, the SC actions or lack of action should tell you the outcome. The final verdict is CASE DISMISSED.
Dear OpenVT7. As I told you, the only verdict is when the hammer go down. Than you can rest in peace. I have a case at the higher supreme court and they told me that it could take years before the final decision. Maybe time is on my side!
Mr OpenVT7. Please understand that I am not the buyer of a unit in VT7 .I am an investor yes, and many of my investments will depend on the outcome of this case !I think that many people who have noting to do with this folowing this case for their future investments .
Yesterday evening, I walk on dangtan beach and I see that View Talay 7 is well occupied . A lot of people have moved in now.
dear StopVT7 .
Please can you provide us with your answer !
It is for many people still not clear if the whole case is ended now or not . The rumour hearsay is that the courts have allready decided that the case is done .
“Please can you provide us with your answer! It is for many people still not clear if the whole case is ended now or not. The rumor hearsay is that the courts have already decided that the case is done.”
Yes, our case is still at the Supreme Administrative Court and there will be a decision. This court will have the final say about if they can fine the team “Measure into the sea 100” written in Issue 9.
Issue 9 said “
Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)
No. 1 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is to be amended by the followings statement:
“No. 1. This Ministerial Regulation applies within the boundary line of the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521”
2. No. 3 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is to be amended by the following statement:
“No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map………… at the seashore in which the following constructions shall not be built:
7.Building of 14 meters higher than road level
Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas (zone) …………… by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map ………… controlling over the regions ………….It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling areas under the aforesaid Royal Decree.
Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 95 Section 157 dated 31 December 2521 (1978)
Remember: The “so called expert” court witness testimony decreased “construction restriction areas as appeared in the map”.
The Supreme Administrative Court will decide our appeal and the meaning of Issue 9!
Their will be addition INFO posted in the near future.
The Appeal is a question between the two courts findings.
The Rayong Admin Court said in their January 16, 2008 Order “Court is of the opinion that if the measurement was made from the building control area shown in the map”
Then later on March 31, 2009 the Rayong Admin Court announced in their decisions the a new claim which can’t be found write it the regulation. The Rayong court claim “the Construction Control Line along the Sea Side is fixed by fixing the Sea Shore at MSL as well and fixed the Construction Control Line, along the Sea Shore to be the Line measured from the Sea Shore at MSL outward into the sea for 100 meters.” This court statement is not logical because it claims two possession of the CCL. One CCL at “Sea Shore at MSL and a second “from the Sea Shore at MSL outward into the sea for 100 meters”. I found this remark incredible, mind-boggling and AMAZING!
Or does the Supreme Administrative Court decision of July 2007 make since? It said Issue 9 “prescribed that the 200 meters line measured from the construction control line shown in the map”.
Which do you measure from?
(1) Measure from the CCL on the map at MSL?
(2) Or measure from two CCL, one at MSL and the other in the sea a 100 meters at the boundary line?
The CCL is noted on the map at MSL, but the Rayong Court appoints expert witness could not figure out you measured from their and he measured into the sea a 100 meter to the map “boundary “ line. The he measured from MSL onto the land a 100 meters!
Mr Rrichard,
Thank you for the update .
As I understand there are 2 possibilities . What if the supreme court ruled that the distance of 100 meter is not correct will they have to demolisch VT7 or are there other Options . I believe that some buyers are not aware that this case is still in the courts .
If the courts rule that the the 100 m is correct that this case is finisched ?
Post a Comment