7 Legal disputes

(1) Central Administrative Court, Pre-trail case no. 3049/2544 between:

  Mr. Deaw Chantawong “Plaintiff”

  Phuket Provincial Land Office “Defendant”

  Bangtao Development Ltd. “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna Grande Ltd. “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna (1) Ltd. “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna (3) Ltd. “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna Resorts & Hotels Public Company Limited “Co-Defendant”

Background

  On 7^(th) August 2001, the plaintiff brought the case to the Central
  Administrative Court against the defendant and requested the Court to
  order the defendant to revoke some land title deeds owned by Bangtao
  Development Ltd., Laguna Grande Ltd., Laguna (1) Ltd., Laguna (3)
  Ltd., and LRH The plaintiff claimed that some title deeds under the
  ownership of the said companies have been issued improperly. Since the
  said companies will be directly bound by the Court judgement they are
  co-defendants in this case.

The present circumstance

  The case now is under the consideration of the Central Administrative
  Court.

 The opinion of the lawyer

  Our evidence has been presented, and the Court is deliberating. No
  further hearings are required.

The executive opinion

  This case is one of several where we are protecting our land title
  rights through the Courts. We are confident that the land titles were
  properly issued and expect to succeed in this case.

(2) Civil Case of the Provincial Court of Phuket, Pre-trial case No.
6590/2534, 7822-26/2534

  Post-trial case No. 17081-84/2542 between:

  Laguna (1) Ltd. and the other five people “Plaintiff”

  Tungkah Harbour Public Co., Ltd. “1^(st) Defendant”

  Seatran Mining Co., Ltd “2^(nd) Defendant”

Background 

  In 1991 six co-plaintiffs who are subsidiary companies of LRH sued
  both defendants in the offence of wrongful acts, causing injury to the
  property. The total capital for the case is Baht 229,446,000. The
  cause of the action was because between 1989-1991 the beach at Bangtao
  Bay (Sub-District of Cherngtalay, District of Thalang, Province of
  Phuket), which is adjacent to Laguna Phuket, was damaged by erosion
  which encroached onto the plaintiff’s land. The Asian Institution of
  Technology (“AIT”) has researched the matter and found that beach
  erosion was caused by tin mine dredging in Bangtao Bay too close to
  the beach. Before the case was brought to Court the cooperation of the
  defendant had been sought, but without success. Therefore, we have
  sued the defendants for the Courts to judge the compensation to be
  paid to the plaintiff and also to prevent further dredging closer than
  two kilometers to the beach. The defendants have exercised their right
  to defend themselves in the proceeding trial of this case.

The present circumstances 

  We are now awaiting the judgement from the Supreme Court.

The opinion of the lawyer

  Losing this case should not significantly affect the Company’s ongoing
  operations.

The executive opinion 

  Management are confident that the pursuit of this case has no effect
  on the Company’s ongoing operations, and is optimistic that the
  outcome will include a cessation of all future dredging in Bangtao
  Bay.

(3) Criminal Case of the Provincial Court of Phuket, Pre-trial case no.
3496/2542 between:

Public Prosecutor “Plaintiff”

Laguna Grande Ltd. “Co-Plaintiff”

Mr. Akara Mumin “1^(st) Defendant”

Mr. Suwit Chidchiew “2^(nd) Defendant”

Mrs. Somporn Panmanee “3^(rd) Defendant”

Background

The Company reported to the Cherngtalay subdistrict police station in
January 1999 that the defendants had trespassed on its land covered by
title deed 5916. The police investigated and found the defendants were
trespassing on the said land to conduct their business with a view to
taking possession of the land. After investigation, the inquiry officer
prepared a prosecution order against the defendants. The case was then
passed to the Phuket public prosecutor for action. A prosecution order
was then issued against the defendants by the public prosecutor. In late
1999, the Company submitted a request to be a co-plaintiff in this case
in hope of obtaining a judgement requiring the defendants to demolish
their construction and remove it from the land. On 15^(th) October 2004,
the Phuket Provincial Court found in favour of the plaintiffs.

The present circumstances

The defendants have appealed against the judgement of the Court of First
Instance to the Appeal Court.

The opinion of the lawyer

We believe that the Company shall prevail in the Appeal Court.

The executive opinion

This case is one of several where we are protecting our land title
rights through the Courts. It is routine, and should have no affect on
our ongoing operations.

(4) Civil cases against trespassers on land at Sheraton Grande Laguna
Phuket

  Case no 1716/2541 of Phuket Provincial Court between:

  Bangtao Development Ltd. “Plaintiff”

  Mrs. Bunmee Sithichai “Defendant”

  Case no 1717/2541 of Phuket Provincial Court between:

  Bangtao Development Ltd. “Plaintiff”

  Mrs. Wasana Ar-Mud “Defendant”

 Background

These cases relate to hawkers who have trespassed on the Land NS3 374,
which belongs to Bangtao Development Ltd. Cases against the defendants
were brought to court on 19^(th) November 1998 alleging trespassing on
this land. The Court of First Instance and the Appeal Court found in
favor of the defendants, reasoning that the Court was not able to find
evidence that the defendants had trespassed on the Company’s land, and
dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff later appealed against
the judgements of the Court of First Instance and the Appeal Court to
higher Courts.

The present circumstances

The case no 1716/2541 is pending in the Supreme Court and the case no
1717/2541 is pending at the Appeal Court.

The opinion of the lawyer

Our evidence has been presented, and the Courts are deliberating. No
further hearings are required.

The executive opinion

This case is one of several where we are protecting our land title
rights through the Courts. It is routine, and should have no affect on
our ongoing operations.

(5) Civil case against trespasser on land with title deed no. 8345,
Pre-trial case no 1351/2546 between:

  Laguna Grande Ltd. “Plaintiff”

  Mr. Ruang Prateep Na Thalang “Defendant”

 Background

  On 21^(st) November 2003, the plaintiff brought this case to the
  Phuket Provincial Court claiming that the defendant has trespassed on
  the plaintiff’s land and the trespass hindered or made impossible the
  plaintiff’s use of the land. The plaintiff asked the Court to have the
  defendant removed from the land and sought Baht 20,000 per month in
  damages from the date of the claim until the defendant vacates the
  land.

The present circumstances

  On 15^(th) October 2004, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to
  make a settlement agreement, and then they presented such agreement to
  the Phuket Provincial Court. The defendant agreed to leave the
  plaintiff’s land. This case has now been finalised.