7 Legal disputes

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

  Mr. Deaw Chantawong “Plaintiff”

  Phuket Provincial Land Office “Defendant”

  Bangtao Development Limited “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna Grande Limited “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna (1) Limited “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna (3) Limited “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 Limited, Laguna Grande Limited, Laguna (1) Limited, Laguna
  (3) Limited, and Laguna Resorts & Hotels Public Company Limited. 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) Limited 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 

  On 20 December 2005, the Supreme Court judged in favor of the
  defendants. This judgment is now deemed as final.

 

The opinion of the lawyer

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

  The executive opinion

  Management is confident that losing this case is unlikely to
  significantly affect the Company’s ongoing operations.

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

  Public Prosecutor “Plaintiff”

  Laguna Grande Limited “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 judgment of the Court of
  First Instance to the Appeal Court. Currently, this case is pending at
  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 Limited “Plaintiff”

  Mrs. Bunmee Sithichai “Defendant”

  Case no 1717/2541 of Phuket Provincial Court between:

  Bangtao Development Limited “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 Limited 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) Criminal case with charge of encroachment on the state property at
    Laguna Beach Resort Hotel, black case no 1635/2548 between:

  Phuket Public Prosecutor “Prosecutor”

  Laguna Beach Club Limited “Accused, 1^(st)”

  Khun Pitak Boonpojjanasoontorn “Accused, 2^(nd)”

 Background

  On 24 April 2005, the prosecutor brought this case to the Phuket
  Provincial Court charging the accused as having jointly encroached on
  the state property which is for the use of the public. If the Company
  were to lose this case then the it would be required to tear down the
  offending structures of the beachfront bar, the water sports building
  and a sala. The Court has scheduled the dates of trial for the
  prosecutor and the accused and the giving of evidence to be completed
  before the end of February 2006.

The present circumstances

  This case is pending in the Court of First Instance.

The opinion of the lawyer

  The accused constructed the Laguna Beach Resort Hotel in compliance
  with the plan that had been approved by all of the respective
  authorities and before the boundary lines were declared as the state
  property.

The executive opinion

  As all of the licenses and permits required to construct the hotel
  have been obtained we are confident that we will prevail in this case.