7 Legal disputes

(1) Central Administrative Court, Pretrail case no. 3049/2544

  Mr.Deaw Chantawong “Plaintiff”

  Phuket Provincial Land Office “Defendant”

  Bangtao Development Ltd. “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna Grande Ltd. “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna (3) Ltd. “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna (1) Ltd. “Co-Defendant”

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

Background

  On 7 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 (3) Ltd., Laguna (1)
  Ltd., and Laguna Resorts and 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) 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 Laguna
  Resorts & Hotels Plc. 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 kilometres to the beach. The
  defendants have exercised their right to defend themselves in the
  proceeding trial of this case.

The judgement of the Court of First Instance

  In December 1999, the Court of First Instance gave the judgement to
  dismiss the plaint.

  The present circumstances

    Subsequent to the result of the Court of First Instance the company
    exercised its right of appeal to the Appeal Court.

  After reviewing the case, the Appeal Court made an offer to the
  parties to compromise on the case in order to reach a mutual agreement
  and find a solution. Unfortunately, the negotiations failed and the
  case returned to the Appeal Court for its judgement. On 29 March 2002,
  the Appeal Court affirmed the judgement of the Court of First
  Instance. On 26 April 2002, the plaintiff appealed the judgement to
  the Supreme Court. We are now awaiting the judgement from the Supreme
  Court.

The opinion of the lawyer

  Although the Company produced an expert opinion as evidence provided
  by Professor Supat Wongwisetsomchai at AIT, that dredging by the
  defendant had caused the beach erosion, the court appears not to have
  taken this into consideration. Given the result of the Appeal Court it
  appear unlikely that the company will prevail in this case. 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 police 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.

The present circumstance

The case is in the process of taking the evidence in the Court of First
Instance.

The opinion of the lawyer

Before the company became a co-plaintiff with the prosecutor to this
case, we were well prepared with strong evidence. Although it is
expected that it will take at least 2-3 years from now to receive the
judgement, management believe that the company shall prevail in this
case.

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

  Bangtao Development Ltd. “Plaintiff”

  Mrs. Bunmee Sithichai “Defendant”

  Case no 1717/2541 of Phuket Provincial Court

  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 Limited. Cases against the
defendants were brought to court on 19 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 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. 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 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

  The plaintiff is waiting for the defendant to respond to the court.

  The opinion of the lawyer

  This is one of several cases where the Company has to protect its
  right to its land.

  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.