Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[thebounder]

Hi the bounder,

I don't pretend to know the details of the case and couched my thoughts very much in those terms, i.e using the words "may" and "generally"... In most jurisdictions, if you apply for an injunction, get it, but subsequently lose the case, you are often liable to compensate those who lost money as a result of the injunction. Are you sure that is not the case here? If it is eventually found that the permit was in fact issued correctly, I would be extremely surprised if the Applicants were not pursued for damages. After all, if the action was brought incorrectly and as a result someone lost money, why shouldn't they seek to recover it. If there was no down side to applying for injunctive relief, one would have thought parties would go for it very regularly. After all, why not, you wouldn't stand to lose anything even if you got it wrong.

I am so sure it is not the case here. That is why Tom, Dick and Harry have been suing the the Thai government or semi-government departments with relish without fear of any repercussions. Thai NGO's love to resort to this Court. Hence, the likelihood of a quick judgment on this Jomtien case is pretty remote. Currently, one NGO has alleged PTT for having privatised improperly its enterprise and wanted the Administrative Court to revert PTT back to the previous position of a state enterprise. The case has stunted the share price of PTT at the stock market. Can the PTT shareholders sue this NGO lot for damaging their shareholdings? Hardly. Your understanding is correct that with that background cases against the state are so inundated with frivolous cases. The idea of an administrative court is to facilitate citizens' claims against oppression of the state. The Administrative Court only accepts cases of citizens against the state and not citizens against citizens. It helps citizens to sue government departments with least formality. One can even write in a similar to a complaint letter. This new form of justice is recent and has influenced the government and semi-government departments in giving more respects to citizens' rights. It has improved the fair running of their power immensely.

I am very surprised to hear that the party subject to the order, i.e View Talay, are not a party to the proceedings. In the jurisdictions in which I have practiced, they would have to be made a party, a co-respondent alongside City Hall, although I fully appreciate that doesn't necessarily mean that is the case here in Thailand. I would be interested to know whether they have locus standi to address the Court at the final hearing. Ordinarily a non-party could not be heard.

It was viewed by the Applicants as a misdeed of the City Hall in granting the building permit to View Talay. The alleged erroneous deed was committed by the City Hall and not View Talay, so there is no point for View Talay to be a co-party to the case. Naturally, View Talay could be called as witnesses for the City Hall.

I am not sure if you misunderstood my original post. I am not saying the Applicants are in a weak position, the truth is I have no idea as to the merits of the case. I was merely stating, as you appear to have agreed, that the hearing on whether to grant an injunction is essentially a one-sided matter and therefore should not necessarily be viewed as any kind of reliable guide as to the eventual outcome of the case.

Your original post gave the impression that it would still be a long way for the Jomtien co-owners to win the case and also likelihood of having to pay View Talay for compensation if View Talay eventually wins the case.

Hearing of the injunction request is based on the potential sufferings of the Applicants and merits of the case and therefore the Respondent has no right to challenge the Applicants' filing. It is the judge who is to question on the presentation and makes his early decision either for or against the Applicants. It is definitely not a conclusive guidance on the final outcome but somewhat tilted at this early stage to favour the Jomtien co-owners.

I wrote this post because of your observations were truly far off the mark and feared of the alarm that the Jomtien co-owners could have suffered. I am a disinterested party but enjoy seeing fairness in our society.

Irene, if you are going to address legal matters you really need to read a great deal more carefully. If you read my initial post again, carefully, you will see that your interpretation of it is absolutely wrong. You seem to ignore qualifications such as, "Although I am not familiar with Thai law on injunctions...", "a Court would generally..." and "the Applicants may..."

My point, which I think was actually very clear, was that all that has happened so far is the Court has decided there is a prima facie case on the basis of the Applicant's submissions and that any defences that the Respondent may have, have not yet been considered, both points which you have agreed yourself. The meaning of which is that, contrary to what some people may believe, the granting of an injunction is of limited relevance to the outcome of the final case. Things can often seem very different when you have only heard one side of the story.

Maybe the joint owners have an exceptionally strong case, I don't know, but the granting of the injunction is not a particularly good guide as to whether or not that is the case (you yourself say the injunction is not conclusive guidance). A lot of people seem to have jumped to the conclusion that because an injunction has been granted the case is all, but won. I was merely trying to explain that usually that is not the case. In your various posts you have agreed exactly that, so why try to criticize something which is not wrong.

[Irene]

[

We file our court case the 12 of March and had a court hearing 28 of March and receive the protection of temporarily court injunction on 9 of April. Which stop the construction of View Talay Project 7. That is fasts! I heard dozen of times from farang what I was wasting my time organizing ten co-owners and raising funds for a court case. This court decision shows that Administrative Court applies the law without looks at ones nationality. Thailand is a country of laws and Administrative Court in Rayon applied the law fairy. The regulation is that any building over 14 meters tall (about 3 stories) is prohibited within 200 meters of the "sea shore". There is other Thai law which states that "sea shore" is measured from "the high tide line.

Remember the admin court did not want to give a final decision because they investigates government agency for "c". So they left this question open and can keep their investigation open.

In the final decision the line will be high tide, their many case which set high tide as the place to beginning to start measurements.

Richard

Richard,

Yes, it has to be fast because of your lawyer's request for an emergency hearing which was granted by the Court. But now under due deliberation and with tight schedules of the court, it is likely to be a year or two before the final decision on where the 200-metres is to be measured from. An appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court is likely from either side, then that will be another year or two. So during this interval, there can be a lot of happenings from the City Hall and View Talay.

Whatever the outcome, I admire you and ten other co-owners for perseverance and ignoring the rumour-mill of the expat community. There are many surprises that Thailand is good at in term of justice, if you get the right lawyer. So, sit tight and watch how the case could evolve. I have got the feeling that you and your colleagues are likely to make a history here.

All the best, Irene

[Irene]

Irene, if you are going to address legal matters you really need to read a great deal more carefully. If you read my initial post again, carefully, you will see that your interpretation of it is absolutely wrong. You seem to ignore qualifications such as, "Although I am not familiar with Thai law on injunctions...", "a Court would generally..." and "the Applicants may..."

My point, which I think was actually very clear, was that all that has happened so far is the Court has decided there is a prima facie case on the basis of the Applicant's submissions and that any defences that the Respondent may have, have not yet been considered, both points which you have agreed yourself. The meaning of which is that, contrary to what some people may believe, the granting of an injunction is of limited relevance to the outcome of the final case. Things can often seem very different when you have only heard one side of the story.

Maybe the joint owners have an exceptionally strong case, I don't know, but the granting of the injunction is not a particularly good guide as to whether or not that is the case (you yourself say the injunction is not conclusive guidance). A lot of people seem to have jumped to the conclusion that because an injunction has been granted the case is all, but won. I was merely trying to explain that usually that is not the case. In your various posts you have agreed exactly that, so why try to criticize something which is not wrong.

Hi thebounder,

Let the readers be the best judge of your contributions to this thread whether you are now back-tracking yourself nicely and blame on me for misreading your contention. Since I have declared my independence on the case, can you do likewise.

Irene

[ThaiBob]

Hi the bounder,

I don't pretend to know the details of the case and couched my thoughts very much in those terms, i.e using the words "may" and "generally"... In most jurisdictions, if you apply for an injunction, get it, but subsequently lose the case, you are often liable to compensate those who lost money as a result of the injunction. Are you sure that is not the case here? If it is eventually found that the permit was in fact issued correctly, I would be extremely surprised if the Applicants were not pursued for damages. After all, if the action was brought incorrectly and as a result someone lost money, why shouldn't they seek to recover it. If there was no down side to applying for injunctive relief, one would have thought parties would go for it very regularly. After all, why not, you wouldn't stand to lose anything even if you got it wrong.

I am so sure it is not the case here. That is why Tom, Dick and Harry have been suing the the Thai government or semi-government departments with relish without fear of any repercussions. Thai NGO's love to resort to this Court. Hence, the likelihood of a quick judgment on this Jomtien case is pretty remote. Currently, one NGO has alleged PTT for having privatised improperly its enterprise and wanted the Administrative Court to revert PTT back to the previous position of a state enterprise. The case has stunted the share price of PTT at the stock market. Can the PTT shareholders sue this NGO lot for damaging their shareholdings? Hardly. Your understanding is correct that with that background cases against the state are so inundated with frivolous cases. The idea of an administrative court is to facilitate citizens' claims against oppression of the state. The Administrative Court only accepts cases of citizens against the state and not citizens against citizens. It helps citizens to sue government departments with least formality. One can even write in a similar to a complaint letter. This new form of justice is recent and has influenced the government and semi-government departments in giving more respects to citizens' rights. It has improved the fair running of their power immensely.

I am very surprised to hear that the party subject to the order, i.e View Talay, are not a party to the proceedings. In the jurisdictions in which I have practiced, they would have to be made a party, a co-respondent alongside City Hall, although I fully appreciate that doesn't necessarily mean that is the case here in Thailand. I would be interested to know whether they have locus standi to address the Court at the final hearing. Ordinarily a non-party could not be heard.

It was viewed by the Applicants as a misdeed of the City Hall in granting the building permit to View Talay. The alleged erroneous deed was committed by the City Hall and not View Talay, so there is no point for View Talay to be a co-party to the case. Naturally, View Talay could be called as witnesses for the City Hall.

I am not sure if you misunderstood my original post. I am not saying the Applicants are in a weak position, the truth is I have no idea as to the merits of the case. I was merely stating, as you appear to have agreed, that the hearing on whether to grant an injunction is essentially a one-sided matter and therefore should not necessarily be viewed as any kind of reliable guide as to the eventual outcome of the case.

Your original post gave the impression that it would still be a long way for the Jomtien co-owners to win the case and also likelihood of having to pay View Talay for compensation if View Talay eventually wins the case.

Hearing of the injunction request is based on the potential sufferings of the Applicants and merits of the case and therefore the Respondent has no right to challenge the Applicants' filing. It is the judge who is to question on the presentation and makes his early decision either for or against the Applicants. It is definitely not a conclusive guidance on the final outcome but somewhat tilted at this early stage to favour the Jomtien co-owners.

I wrote this post because of your observations were truly far off the mark and feared of the alarm that the Jomtien co-owners could have suffered. I am a disinterested party but enjoy seeing fairness in our society.

200 meters from low tide is clearly ridiculous; 200 meters from mean tide not quite as ridiculous; 200 meters from high tide and allowing for surges is clearly the most sensible as this measurement will protect and save lives and property.

Yes, of course, 200 meters from high tide is most sensible but this is Thailand. Forget the blocked views, construction noise and dust, and altered wind patterns. This case IMO hinges on the interpretion of an unclear ministerial regulation. If the City of Pattaya can show it has fairly and consistently applied it's interpretation (using the mean-tide mark?) for many years to this regulation then I would think the farang JC complaintants are SOL. What ever happens this regulation needs to be re-written clarified.

We file our court case the 12 of March and had a court hearing 28 of March and receive the protection of temporarily court injunction on 9 of April. Which stop the construction of View Talay Project 7. That is fasts! I heard dozen of times from farang what I was wasting my time organizing ten co-owners and raising funds for a court case. This court decision shows that Administrative Court applies the law without looks at ones nationality. Thailand is a country of laws and Administrative Court in Rayon applied the law fairy. The regulation is that any building over 14 meters tall (about 3 stories) is prohibited within 200 meters of the “sea shore”. There is other Thai law which states that “sea shore” is measured from “the high tide line.

Remember the admin court did not want to give a final decision because they investigates government agency for “c”. So they left this question open and can keep their investigation open.

In the final decision the line will be high tide, their many case which set high tide as the place to beginning to start measurements.

Richard

Well this is getting interesting. As you pointed out the ministerial regulation uses the word "sea shore". Do you have specific references (regulation numbers, case numbers, etc.) to the "other" Thai law that uses high-tide as the measuring point? How did the City of Pattaya measure for VT3, VT5, and other new projects? If you can nail the City on the high-tide mark you definitely have a winning case. But why the far away court date in November? Seems like that date gives the City some breathing room. You've caught them off guard and should act quickly before they can re-group. Even if they lose I suppose there will be lengthy and costly appeals.

[Tammi]

We file our court case the 12 of March and had a court hearing 28 of March and receive the protection of temporarily court injunction on 9 of April. Which stop the construction of View Talay Project 7. That is fasts! I heard dozen of times from farang what I was wasting my time organizing ten co-owners and raising funds for a court case. This court decision shows that Administrative Court applies the law without looks at ones nationality. Thailand is a country of laws and Administrative Court in Rayon applied the law fairy. The regulation is that any building over 14 meters tall (about 3 stories) is prohibited within 200 meters of the “sea shore”. There is other Thai law which states that “sea shore” is measured from “the high tide line. [/size]

Richard

Well this is getting interesting. As you pointed out the ministerial regulation uses the word "sea shore". Do you have specific references (regulation numbers, case numbers, etc.) to the "other" Thai law that uses high-tide as the measuring point? How did the City of Pattaya measure for VT3, VT5, and other new projects? If you can nail the City on the high-tide mark you definitely have a winning case. But why the far away court date in November? Seems like that date gives the City some breathing room. You've caught them off guard and should act quickly before they can re-group. Even if they lose I suppose there will be lengthy and costly appeals.

The legal definition (Oxford dictionary) of seashore is the area between high and low watermarks.

Webster says it is area between ordinary high and low watermarks.

In the UK seashore is Crown Land (except in a few cases dating back hundreds of years). In the USA depends on the State. Is the seashore Crown Land in Thailand? If it is there will be no 'lengthy and costly appeals'.

If Richard is right - and we have no reason to doubt him - City Hall and VT have to measure from the high watermark.

Jomthien Complex will definitely win!

[Tammi]

[

Well this is getting interesting. As you pointed out the ministerial regulation uses the word "sea shore". Do you have specific references (regulation numbers, case numbers, etc.) to the "other" Thai law that uses high-tide as the measuring point? How did the City of Pattaya measure for VT3, VT5, and other new projects? If you can nail the City on the high-tide mark you definitely have a winning case. But why the far away court date in November? Seems like that date gives the City some breathing room. You've caught them off guard and should act quickly before they can re-group. Even if they lose I suppose there will be lengthy and costly appeals.

How indeed?

I heard that Grand Condotel co-owners were told that City Hall has the right to decide every 5 years how much nearer the seashore hi-rises can be built. Is the VT cereal box next to Grand Condo 200 meters from the seashore? Think I'll go put on my walking shoes, hike over to Dongtan Beach, and pace it out. I would buy into GC if it weren't for VT being so close and ugly too. If it's less than 200 meters they'll have to take it down!

[Thaifan2]

>>Jomthien Complex will definitely win! <<

Agree you have a good case ,but never forget TIT,so dont take it for granted .

[Irene]

Well this is getting interesting. As you pointed out the ministerial regulation uses the word "sea shore". Do you have specific references (regulation numbers, case numbers, etc.) to the "other" Thai law that uses high-tide as the measuring point? How did the City of Pattaya measure for VT3, VT5, and other new projects? If you can nail the City on the high-tide mark you definitely have a winning case. But why the far away court date in November? Seems like that date gives the City some breathing room. You've caught them off guard and should act quickly before they can re-group. Even if they lose I suppose there will be lengthy and costly appeals.

Hi ThaiBob,

The date in November was the earliest date in the judge's diary when he is available to listen to the first hearing. There is no motive of either having time to investigate the "c" since the court has no investigative power, nor giving time to the City to defend its case.

Per Thai Civil Code, seashore falls under the public domain that the public can use. So, in short, no private beach is legally possible. Therefore, it also supports the high- tide measurement and the starting benchmark can even be closer to View Talay i.e. the area where there is sand, i.e. the deck-chair area. Even though the fact may favour Jomtien co-owners but the potential losses to the developer and its committed customers are great, so watch out the development carefully as Thaifan2 has warned that "this is Thailand". So do not be over-confident and sit on one's laurel!!!

[lookat]

[

Well this is getting interesting. As you pointed out the ministerial regulation uses the word "sea shore". Do you have specific references (regulation numbers, case numbers, etc.) to the "other" Thai law that uses high-tide as the measuring point? How did the City of Pattaya measure for VT3, VT5, and other new projects? If you can nail the City on the high-tide mark you definitely have a winning case. But why the far away court date in November? Seems like that date gives the City some breathing room. You've caught them off guard and should act quickly before they can re-group. Even if they lose I suppose there will be lengthy and costly appeals.

How indeed?

I heard that Grand Condotel co-owners were told that City Hall has the right to decide every 5 years how much nearer the seashore hi-rises can be built. Is the VT cereal box next to Grand Condo 200 meters from the seashore? Think I'll go put on my walking shoes, hike over to Dongtan Beach, and pace it out. I would buy into GC if it weren't for VT being so close and ugly too. If it's less than 200 meters they'll have to take it down!

The admin court can tear down a building which has been illegal built up to 5 years after its completion.

View Talay 5 (finish in 2006), 3(finish in 2005) and “Beach” in Pattaya which is under construction are also in violation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act.

Will these buildings be torn down?

Is Realty Company warning buyer about the risk when showing View Talay 5 and 3?

Do realtors have a liability in selling this condo which violating the law?

I have been advices “YES” by and involved lawyer to all three of these question!

Now who want to show and sell the View Talay condos?

[lookat]

[

Well this is getting interesting. As you pointed out the ministerial regulation uses the word "sea shore". Do you have specific references (regulation numbers, case numbers, etc.) to the "other" Thai law that uses high-tide as the measuring point? How did the City of Pattaya measure for VT3, VT5, and other new projects? If you can nail the City on the high-tide mark you definitely have a winning case. But why the far away court date in November? Seems like that date gives the City some breathing room. You've caught them off guard and should act quickly before they can re-group. Even if they lose I suppose there will be lengthy and costly appeals.

How indeed?

I heard that Grand Condotel co-owners were told that City Hall has the right to decide every 5 years how much nearer the seashore hi-rises can be built. Is the VT cereal box next to Grand Condo 200 meters from the seashore? Think I'll go put on my walking shoes, hike over to Dongtan Beach, and pace it out. I would buy into GC if it weren't for VT being so close and ugly too. If it's less than 200 meters they'll have to take it down!

The admin court can tear down a building which has been illegal built up to 5 years after its completion.

View Talay 5 (finish in 2006), 3(finish in 2005) and "Beach" in Pattaya which is under construction are also in violation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act.

Will these buildings be torn down?

Is Realty Company warning buyer about the risk when showing View Talay 5 and 3?

Do realtors have a liability in selling this condo which violating the law?

I have been advices "YES" by and involved lawyer to all three of these question!

Now who want to show and sell the View Talay condos?

Grand Condotel needs a good lawyer which didn’t buy city hall smoke and mirrors. One which knows Administrative Court law and get view talay 5 tore down.

[Digger]

It maybe a moot point and I admit to not being up to speed on all this situation, but what is the anticipated outcome of this if the court finds in favour of the 10 people who brought the action? For example, if the court finds in their favour, what is too stop the following scenario happening:-

1. City Hall say, ok we accept what the judge say and whist we do not agree with him, we have to accept it.

2. View Talay submit new plans, with a Tiered building that suddenly goes up to 30 stories on the 200m line.

3. Pattaya City Hall approve it.

End of problem for everyone except the people who brought the action as they have still lost the seaview.

I am asuming in all this that the land plot in question is circa 200m deep, which when allowing for the road and beach area will allow them to build at least something hi-rise.

[coltrane]

Administrative Court orders halting of building in Pattaya

The Administrative Court in Rayong issued on Wednesday an injunction halting construction of a residential building that will block sea views of residents in a nearby condominium.

The court injunction noted that Pattaya City Council allowed building of View Talay Jomtien Condominium to proceed when it might have violated regulations protecting the rights of nearby residents.

...

The court said the site of the condominium appeared to be less than the legally required distance of 200 metres from Jomtien Complex Condotel.

Regulations require building of 18 metres or higher to be more than 200 metres apart. The View Talay Jomtien Condominium is a 27-storey, 81-metre tall building.

Although the court has not ruled on the 200metre distance issue, it ordered an injunction and said the owners of the condominium would have to prove they were not violating the regulation.

- The Nation

I'm confused. All the discussion in this thread is about whether the new development is >200 metres from the 'shoreline'. But the Nation report suggests that the legal issue is the distance from the building itself (given that both are > 18 metres). Has the Nation misunderstood, or are there two separate issues here? The one that the Nation identifies certainly sounds the more reasonable (or at least equally reasonable), given what I know of planning requirements elsewhere.

[Tammi]

It maybe a moot point and I admit to not being up to speed on all this situation, but what is the anticipated outcome of this if the court finds in favour of the 10 people who brought the action? For example, if the court finds in their favour, what is too stop the following scenario happening:-

1. City Hall say, ok we accept what the judge say and whist we do not agree with him, we have to accept it.

2. View Talay submit new plans, with a Tiered building that suddenly goes up to 30 stories on the 200m line.

3. Pattaya City Hall approve it.

End of problem for everyone except the people who brought the action as they have still lost the seaview.

I am asuming in all this that the land plot in question is circa 200m deep, which when allowing for the road and beach area will allow them to build at least something hi-rise.

I think that a few posts back Richard said that Jomthien Complex is 220 metres back from seashore. VT will be hard pressed to build any hi-rise on 20 meters. Anyway the 20 meters is probably taken up with access road and garden belonging to Jomthien Complex.

Richard?

[ThaiBob]

[

Well this is getting interesting. As you pointed out the ministerial regulation uses the word "sea shore". Do you have specific references (regulation numbers, case numbers, etc.) to the "other" Thai law that uses high-tide as the measuring point? How did the City of Pattaya measure for VT3, VT5, and other new projects? If you can nail the City on the high-tide mark you definitely have a winning case. But why the far away court date in November? Seems like that date gives the City some breathing room. You've caught them off guard and should act quickly before they can re-group. Even if they lose I suppose there will be lengthy and costly appeals.

How indeed?

I heard that Grand Condotel co-owners were told that City Hall has the right to decide every 5 years how much nearer the seashore hi-rises can be built. Is the VT cereal box next to Grand Condo 200 meters from the seashore? Think I'll go put on my walking shoes, hike over to Dongtan Beach, and pace it out. I would buy into GC if it weren't for VT being so close and ugly too. If it's less than 200 meters they'll have to take it down!

I too have heard this 5 year review mentioned several times in the past. Does anybody know if it is fact or fantasy?

It's the City of Pattaya who allegedly issued illegal building permits and have the liability not VT. Do you really think the City has the legal and financial resources to tear-down VT3, VT5, and others? It would bankrupt the City. If the JC farangs win their case, I suspect these other projects would be grand-fathered.

[ThaiBob]

[

Well this is getting interesting. As you pointed out the ministerial regulation uses the word "sea shore". Do you have specific references (regulation numbers, case numbers, etc.) to the "other" Thai law that uses high-tide as the measuring point? How did the City of Pattaya measure for VT3, VT5, and other new projects? If you can nail the City on the high-tide mark you definitely have a winning case. But why the far away court date in November? Seems like that date gives the City some breathing room. You've caught them off guard and should act quickly before they can re-group. Even if they lose I suppose there will be lengthy and costly appeals.

How indeed?

I heard that Grand Condotel co-owners were told that City Hall has the right to decide every 5 years how much nearer the seashore hi-rises can be built. Is the VT cereal box next to Grand Condo 200 meters from the seashore? Think I'll go put on my walking shoes, hike over to Dongtan Beach, and pace it out. I would buy into GC if it weren't for VT being so close and ugly too. If it's less than 200 meters they'll have to take it down!

The admin court can tear down a building which has been illegal built up to 5 years after its completion.

View Talay 5 (finish in 2006), 3(finish in 2005) and “Beach” in Pattaya which is under construction are also in violation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act.

Will these buildings be torn down?

Is Realty Company warning buyer about the risk when showing View Talay 5 and 3?

Do realtors have a liability in selling this condo which violating the law?

I have been advices “YES” by and involved lawyer to all three of these question!

Now who want to show and sell the View Talay condos?

I think this talk for tearing down VT5 and the other projects is shear non-sense.

"Is Realty Company warning buyer about the risk when showing View Talay 5 and 3?" Well that's a rhetorical question, isn't it? In all fairness, I've seen ads for quite some time on realtors web-sites showing pictures of the wonderful sea-views of condos for sale at JC. No mention at all those views would be compromised the 27-story VT7. Sometimes I wonder if realtors in Thailand have a code of ethics.

[icecubes]

I think this talk for tearing down VT5 and the other projects is shear non-sense.

"Is Realty Company warning buyer about the risk when showing View Talay 5 and 3?" Well that's a rhetorical question, isn't it? In all fairness, I've seen ads for quite some time on realtors web-sites showing pictures of the wonderful sea-views of condos for sale at JC. No mention at all those views would be compromised the 27-story VT7. Sometimes I wonder if realtors in Thailand have a code of ethics.

nameha='TiBob' date='2007-04-13 23:43:25' post='1250378']

Sometimes I wonder if realtors in thailand have a code of ethics

[stopvt7]

City hall used two arguments which one was MINISTERIAL Regulations enacting the aggregate town plan of Pattaya City, Chonburi Province B.E. 2546 which specified VT7 building area as commercial area and they can issue a building permit any commercial building and a condo is a commercial building.

Other argument was old out dated Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) which they claimed says “100 meters away from the mean water level.” But actual the copy of this regulation which they gave was an “environment law” which stated “100 meters away from the mean water level.”

Then they went on and claimed either law apples because VT7 is over 23 meters tall. Because it over 23 meters tall it is a “tall building” and is covered by Ministerial Regulations number 33 and 50 and it exempted 200 meters from the sea. Besides VT7 meet Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment which set boundaries and measures to protect the environment and here is where the “100 meters away from the mean water level” come into the argument.

City hall had no defense for Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (see below) and just tiered to use “smoke and mirrors” to argued their reason for issuing a building permit. They keep trying to confuse the Judge but it did not work. Are you confuse yet?

Amnat our lawyer stated it doesn’t matter which point you measure from even low tide. VT7 is not within the standards on Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 and the court should stop the construction of VT7.

Ministerial Regulation

Issue 8 (B.E. 2519)

Issued under the Building Construction Control Act

B.E. 2479

…………………………………

By the virtue of the Section 15 of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, the Ministry of Interior issued the following Ministerial Regulations:

1. This Ministerial Regulation applies to the boundary line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479.”

2. No. 3 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 to be amended by the following statement:

“No 3. Setting of 200 meters measured from 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 at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

1. Building of 14 meters higher than road level.
   

YES, I was asked if I wanted to include VT5 in our case and have it torn down. I chose not to go their! It was explained for five years one could bring a case to tear down VT5 in Admin Court.

Richard

[Weho]

I'm going to pretend to be a reasonable judge, and make a pretend ruling.

Both sides are partially right, both sides are partially wrong. When a plot of land is in such clear dispute, no building permit should be issued until the matter has been fully litigated. City Hall erred in issuing this permit too fast. I'm going to randomly pick a number, out of my a**, that allows the VT plot owners to build their building up to 10 stories high. City Hall will pay all court costs to the two towers in the back, but not for the VT, who presumably with their company size, should have known the area was/would be disputed. No compensation to any residents getting their views blocked.

Lesson learned: If you want your view protected, buy the property in front of you. Condo and home owners should always presume that all neighbors will build out their adjacent properties to the MAXIMUM permitted by law.

The VT people were within reason to start construction, when they had their building permit in hand, but they should have known the property was in serious question. Their punishment: reduction in the number of floors.

And let me add: the WORST argument one could use is a whinning, "I'm going to lose my view". A view is not god-given, nor guaranteed anywhere, by anyone. As a pretend judge, if I heard ANYONE claim they brought suit because they were losing their view, I would see that they lost the case based on that point alone. I wouldn't listen to it, it is 100% irrelevant, and as a pretend Judge, you would lose ALL of your credibility with me for attempting to bring a lost view up, as a reason to stop some construction.

I repeat: if you want your view guaranteed, buy the property in front of you. Or get together with your neighbors, and buy the property in front of you.

And whoever earlier said something about trying to sue the original developer who made all kinds of false promises, you're wasteing your time. It won't get you anywhere. They clearly had the right to sell off that front parcel, and the buyer, VT has the right to try to build to the maximum permitted by law. VT was mostly right. Try to make a deal, try to settle with VT, or you may lose out completely. Maybe they will pay 100,000 baht to all owners in the two existing towers if you will all go away. If 50% or more of the condo owners agree, take it, or you may end up with ZIPPO.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Weho

[Tammi]

I'm going to pretend to be a reasonable judge, and make a pretend ruling.

Both sides are partially right, both sides are partially wrong. When a plot of land is in such clear dispute, no building permit should be issued until the matter has been fully litigated. City Hall erred in issuing this permit too fast. I'm going to randomly pick a number, out of my a**, that allows the VT plot owners to build their building up to 10 stories high. City Hall will pay all court costs to the two towers in the back, but not for the VT, who presumably with their company size, should have known the area was/would be disputed. No compensation to any residents getting their views blocked.

Lesson learned: If you want your view protected, buy the property in front of you. Condo and home owners should always presume that all neighbors will build out their adjacent properties to the MAXIMUM permitted by law.

The VT people were within reason to start construction, when they had their building permit in hand, but they should have known the property was in serious question. Their punishment: reduction in the number of floors.

And let me add: the WORST argument one could use is a whinning, "I'm going to lose my view". A view is not god-given, nor guaranteed anywhere, by anyone. As a pretend judge, if I heard ANYONE claim they brought suit because they were losing their view, I would see that they lost the case based on that point alone. I wouldn't listen to it, it is 100% irrelevant, and as a pretend Judge, you would lose ALL of your credibility with me for attempting to bring a lost view up, as a reason to stop some construction.

I repeat: if you want your view guaranteed, buy the property in front of you. Or get together with your neighbors, and buy the property in front of you.

And whoever earlier said something about trying to sue the original developer who made all kinds of false promises, you're wasteing your time. It won't get you anywhere. Try to make a deal, try to settle with VT, or you may lose out completely.

We can all be very happy that you are a "pretend judge" who doesn't know his a** from a hole in the ground, which, BTW, I hope VT has to make good when they vacate the site.

[Digger]

So what is to say that even if this judge agrees and stops VT7 being built, that the city planners do not just adopt a new law and permit high rise being built up to say a 100m line, thus tidying up a confusing law? Maybe the building will get delayed for 3/4 years and possibly the land area becomes a rubbish dump in the meantime, but I still believe that the stakes are too high for this building NOT to get built.

I hope for the Guys in the condo behind that it does work for them, but I would not hold out that much hope myself when this amount of money and face is at stake.

[Weho]

We can all be very happy that you are a "pretend judge" who doesn't know his a** from a hole in the ground, which, BTW, I hope VT has to make good when they vacate the site.

Nasty! Why should VT vacate the site? It is THEIR property, they paid a lot of money for it.

Quite frankly, IF the VT is allowed to continue, it will send a strong message that property owners are safe in Thailand. IF VT is NOT allowed to continue to be built, it will send a message that a bunch of whinny people in the rear existing towers, who weren't smart enough to buy the property in front of them, got their way, their whinning worked, and the strong message will be that property is NOT safe in Thailand.

Remember folks, this isn't about views... they are not protected anywhere in the world. It's about having the right to develop your property, according to what the law says. I hope VT gets built, to whatever is within the law... the MAXIMUM possible building height, within the law.

"The law" is what is not known yet, but surely, they will be allowed to build SOMETHING.

[expatgaz]

I live in a ground floor place so a sea view never interested me.Personnaly I think Jomtien Complex should be knocked down,its an eyesore,horrible buildings.

[Tammi]

So what is to say that even if this judge agrees and stops VT7 being built, that the city planners do not just adopt a new law and permit high rise being built up to say a 100m line, thus tidying up a confusing law? Maybe the building will get delayed for 3/4 years and possibly the land area becomes a rubbish dump in the meantime, but I still believe that the stakes are too high for this building NOT to get built.

I hope for the Guys in the condo behind that it does work for them, but I would not hold out that much hope myself when this amount of money and face is at stake.

City planners have to follow laws passed by central government. That's the whole point of Jomthien Complex's case now before the Administrative Court - City Hall did not follow central government law.

And while I'm on the subject of laws - the Condominium Act and the Regulations of a Condo's Juristic Person were also put in place to protect condo owners from unscrupulous and/or ignorant Committee Members/Juristic Person Manager/General Manager. How many of you condo owners have read those 2 documents, know your rights and are prepared to fight for them?

Would be interested to know how many of Jomthien Complex's plaintiffs are Committee Members, Juristic Person Manager, General Manager.

[Tammi]

We can all be very happy that you are a "pretend judge" who doesn't know his a** from a hole in the ground, which, BTW, I hope VT has to make good when they vacate the site.

Nasty! Why should VT vacate the site? It is THEIR property, they paid a lot of money for it.

Quite frankly, IF the VT is allowed to continue, it will send a strong message that property owners are safe in Thailand. IF VT is NOT allowed to continue to be built, it will send a message that a bunch of whinny people in the rear existing towers, who weren't smart enough to buy the property in front of them, got their way, their whinning worked, and the strong message will be that property is NOT safe in Thailand.

Remember folks, this isn't about views... they are not protected anywhere in the world. It's about having the right to develop your property, according to what the law says. I hope VT gets built, to whatever is within the law... the MAXIMUM possible building height, within the law.

"The law" is what is not known yet, but surely, they will be allowed to build SOMETHING.

Yes,

If VT is not allowed to be built it will send the message that Thailand's laws have to be respected.

I agree that OP should not have said anything about a seaview.

Maybe VT will build some little mini cereal boxes.

[Digger]

I understand your point Tammi, however the law about measurements from the sea does not seem to be consistent around Thailand. For example in Hua Hin, I have seen many condo's that are barely 50m from the edge of the beach, presumably these were not all built before this law came into effect. Therefore whats too stop, Pattaya City pleading the case that with this confusion, the law needs to be adjusted to be consistent, thereby creating a get-out which will eventually allow for the VT7 place to be built. It may not eventually be the same as the design already approved, but I suspect it will get built eventually. As I say, I suspect the stakes are too high and the lobbying at central government level will be too great for anything other than a building being put up - the thought of Pattaya City being sued by the developers would be something I doubt anybody will relish. Sure, central government may say "well it serves them right for taking money" however as we all know, a lot of dicsussions happen to avoid anyone losing face (and not to mention the city having to potentially paying out hundreds of milllion baht in compensation to the developer). As I say, I suspect that IF the court finds the planning approval was wrongly issued, we can expect a change in the law once this has all been forgotten, which then permits a revised building line. In the meantime, VT may decide to lease the land on a short term agreement to the city for the building of a drug rehab centre, dog home, etc etc (Basically anything which will cause as much pain to the winners as they can).

[thebounder]

Hi thebounder,

Let the readers be the best judge of your contributions to this thread whether you are now back-tracking yourself nicely and blame on me for misreading your contention. Since I have declared my independence on the case, can you do likewise.

Irene

What??? Are you for real? How can I possibly be backtracking by quoting exact words from my initial post?

Yes, I am 100% independent. I have nothing to do with this thing whatsoever and couldn't care less about the eventual outcome. However, I am a multi jurisdictional qualified lawyer and have signficant, high level experience of injunctions (albeit, as I made quite clear, not in Thailand). This being a forum, I thought I would try to aid the understanding of anyone interested enough to read by explaining that there is a big difference between the granting of an interim injunction and a final judgement upon an issue.

Please go argue with someone else. In your various posts, you have agreed that all the injunction means is that the applicants have shown a prima facie case, that the respondent has not yet had the chance to put its case and that the granting of an injunction is not a good guide to the eventual outcome of a case. Wait a minute, that was exactly what I was trying to say... So please read carefully and think before you type.

[Tammi]

I understand your point Tammi, however the law about measurements from the sea does not seem to be consistent around Thailand. For example in Hua Hin, I have seen many condo's that are barely 50m from the edge of the beach, presumably these were not all built before this law came into effect. Therefore whats too stop, Pattaya City pleading the case that with this confusion, the law needs to be adjusted to be consistent, thereby creating a get-out which will eventually allow for the VT7 place to be built. It may not eventually be the same as the design already approved, but I suspect it will get built eventually. As I say, I suspect the stakes are too high and the lobbying at central government level will be too great for anything other than a building being put up - the thought of Pattaya City being sued by the developers would be something I doubt anybody will relish. Sure, central government may say "well it serves them right for taking money" however as we all know, a lot of dicsussions happen to avoid anyone losing face (and not to mention the city having to potentially paying out hundreds of milllion baht in compensation to the developer). As I say, I suspect that IF the court finds the planning approval was wrongly issued, we can expect a change in the law once this has all been forgotten, which then permits a revised building line. In the meantime, VT may decide to lease the land on a short term agreement to the city for the building of a drug rehab centre, dog home, etc etc (Basically anything which will cause as much pain to the winners as they can).

There is no confusion. Here, we have a Law that states we have to measure 200 meters from the seashore. Could be that Hua Hin measures 50 meters from the seashore. Could be that Hua Hin is breaking the law. Sure, parliament can enact a new law, in the meantime City Hall and the developers are stuck with the law that is in force now. And with possible tsunamis and global warming the legislators would be very careful not to pass a law that could endanger more property and lives.

A dog home? A rehab center? VT?

[Digger]

Yes thats my point - the government could change the law or allow for an amendment in the case of Pattaya if the city can highlight some compelling case why it needs to be changed for the benefit of the city. A lot of this will be done in secret I suspect - as it is in any country and of course, such a change would be purely co-incidental to benefit the developers of this project, hence they may have to wait a couple of years till the dust dies down.

Oh and by the way, forgot the rehab centre, a far more likely scenario is that VT allow the land to be used for a collection of beer bars (with compulsory loud music) until they get their own way. I had overlooked what everyother Thai land owner does to bring some cash in Short time while they get their own way on a building project and/or sell the land at a price they find acceptable.

[Irene]

Hi thebounder,

Let the readers be the best judge of your contributions to this thread whether you are now back-tracking yourself nicely and blame on me for misreading your contention. Since I have declared my independence on the case, can you do likewise.

Irene

What??? Are you for real? How can I possibly be backtracking by quoting exact words from my initial post?

Yes, I am 100% independent. I have nothing to do with this thing whatsoever and couldn't care less about the eventual outcome. However, I am a multi jurisdictional qualified lawyer and have signficant, high level experience of injunctions (albeit, as I made quite clear, not in Thailand). This being a forum, I thought I would try to aid the understanding of anyone interested enough to read by explaining that there is a big difference between the granting of an interim injunction and a final judgement upon an issue.

Please go argue with someone else. In your various posts, you have agreed that all the injunction means is that the applicants have shown a prima facie case, that the respondent has not yet had the chance to put its case and that the granting of an injunction is not a good guide to the eventual outcome of a case. Wait a minute, that was exactly what I was trying to say... So please read carefully and think before you type.

Hi thebounder,

I asked whether you were independent because from one of your previous postings I noticed that you were a real estate agent in Pataya.

I read your posting carefully, especially on the part you put the caution to the Jomtien co-owners that they could face an eventual claim for compensation for the delay of the construction (if the Court agrees with the City Hall). Even though you put in a lot of qualifications of "may" and "your known jurisdiction", not being a high-powered lawyer, I still found the contention as somewhat scary to the Applicants (plaintiff) when in my legalistic mind the possibility of having to face that loss is remote in theory and in practice especially when the Administrative Court did not throw out the case as frivolous.

If you did not mention the risk of compensation payments by the Applicant, I would have viewed your posting as noble in sharing your experience.

[Tammi]

The admin court can tear down a building which has been illegal built up to 5 years after its completion.

View Talay 5 (finish in 2006), 3(finish in 2005) and “Beach” in Pattaya which is under construction are also in violation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act.

Will these buildings be torn down?

Is Realty Company warning buyer about the risk when showing View Talay 5 and 3?

Do realtors have a liability in selling this condo which violating the law?

I have been advices “YES” by and involved lawyer to all three of these question!

Now who want to show and sell the View Talay condos?

Where did you get this information from about admin court can take down illegal buildings up to 5 years after completion?